THE HARMONY Between the Old and Present Non-Conformists PRINCIPLES, In Relation to the TERMS of Conformity, With Respect both to the CLERGY, and the PEOPLE.  
Wherein A short History of the Original of the English LITURGY, and some Reasons why several truly Conscientious Christians cannot join with the Church in it.  
Humbly Presented to Public Consideration in order to the obtaining some necessary Relaxation and Indulgence.  
To which are added some Letters that passed between the Lord Cecil, and Archbishop Whitgift.  
The Fault is on both sides, and on neither side. For the Godly wise on both sides bear with each other, and concentre in the main. But then there be selfish, peevish Spirits, on both sides some, and these make the Quarrel.  Greenham's Answer to the Lord Cecil's Question, Who is the Faulty Causer of the Division in the Church? 
LONDON, Printed and are to be sold by Joseph Collier on London-Bridge, 1682.   

To the Right Reverend Edward Lord Bishop of Cork and Ross in Ireland.  
MY LORD,  
ON a perusal of your late Treatise, Entitled, The Protestant Peace Maker, I find your Lordship so very much disposed to pursue Charity, Peace and Union, the only necessary mean left us for the preservation of the Reformed Protestant Religion, that though I am a perfect stranger to you, I cannot choose but make, and hope that you will Candidly receive this present Dedication.  
There is now (as your Lordship expresses it p. 29.) an argument for Unity, which must be heard, and is ; We must Unite or be destroyed. At all times Christian duty obliges us thereto: now necessity or self-preservation too, or more parties may balance one, when any single other cannot. [Thus 'tis evident we must Unite.] The strength of the Protestant Cause, both here, at home, and throughout Christendom lies in the Union of Protestants, and the glory, purity and power of Christianity in this world, stand or falls with Protestantism. But the only question is upon what Terms must the Church of England come over to the Dissenters, or the Dissenters go over to the Church.  
The right stating the true Terms of Union is a work of extraordinary difficulty, a work that requires the heads and hearts of the greatest, the most judicious and Holy men on earth to contribute all they can towards it. Government in the Church must be secured, tender Consciences relieved; Where there is no government, all things will run into confusion, where there is no relief for tender Consciences, there can be no union. The government of a National Church must be National, and such as is most exactly suited to the civil constitution of the Natiou, The former must not interferr with the later. But of this, though your Lordship speaks nothing, yet may your Lordship see something (God permitting it) in good time that some Dissenters have to offer towards the healing our breaches, and that also in a way consistent with an establishment of such a National Church government, as agrees with the ancient constitution of this Kingdom: That which your Lordship's wisdom hath insisted on, is a point of moment and importance, namely, the Liturgy and Ceremonies, concerning which you propose mutual concessions and approaches, as the only probable uniting expedient. Now if compliance be likeliest to do the business, (you say, let us relax a little on both hands in the fear of God, and fall upon it; Let us Candidly consult what good Conscience, what prudence will bear towards an accommodation. (To this you add Page 118. 119.) I do not conceive the alteration of an expression, or perhaps here and there of an whole Prayer or two, by Law, or the dispensing (still by Law) with some ceremony in Law, for the sake of some unsatisfied, but otherwise regular Christians (who are not supposed of the Cathedral Body) I say, I do not conceive such concession or relaxation as this, would break the harmony and beauty of our worship, or disturb the Union or Peace of our Church. I will therefore freely publish my thoughts to be, that whither we Consider the Nature of the thing itself, or with regard to the Apostle's Rule. Rom. 15. 1, 2. Not to please ourselves, but every one of us to please his Neighbour for his good to Edification. In either regard I say, there are some Collects, and perhaps Rubrics too, which with all Duty and Submission I humbly conceive may be altered for the better. And farther that in some Seasons, and in some private places.— If the Obligation to a Ceremony or two were taken off, the benefit which would hence redound to the Church would be very Considerable.— And I seem to myself herein to follow the sense and guidance of our Church, for even at present the Injunction of the Ceremonies does not appear to me to extend itself to all places and seasons. There are also divers other points, which when once the design of a fair Accommodation shall be on foot, will be fit to be mentioned, and indeed will both of Course offer themselves, and be I judge, as easily granted; such as the Liberty of exchanging Apocryphal Lessons for Canonical ones, any Amendment of such Defects, as can be proved, in the Calendar, The Use of the most Correct Translation of the Psalms. A better Metrical Version also, and perhaps some like matters, which we may account small, some Dissenters do not.  
My Lord,  
May the expedient you propose be attended unto, the desired Union would soon be obtained, for thereby all those Arguments mentioned in the ensuing Treatise, which press hard on the Consciences of some Dissenters, concerning the present Terms of Communion, would be answered, their Consciences relieved, and they be of the same external Communion with the Church of England. I do therefore humbly presume to beseech your Lordship to do your utmost for the furthering this peaceable, and uniting Design, for certainly you have hit on what, if closely followed, will reconcile us, and as your Lordship will express it, this is the only probable expedient, for 'tis an undoubted Truth, That there are among the Dissenters a considerable Number, who are under the most powerful, and plain Convictions of Conscience about the unlawfulness of the present Liturgy as Ordered by the Canon, and Rubric to be used, and of the Ceremonies that they cannot but by sinning against God to the wounding of their own Consciences, conform.  
That the World may be assured of this much, and see how necessary some Relaxations are in Order unto Union. I have shown what are the Sentiments of some of the most Judicious and more moderate Dissenters, why 'tis yet they conform not to the Terms of Lay-Communion imposed by the Church, and why 'tis they erect separate Congregations. Some are so fully Convinced of the unlawfulness of the present Liturgy, and Ceremonies, that they refuse to Conform, because they think their Conformity to be sinful, but other do not so much insist on the sinfulness, as on the Inexpediency of their Conformity. They cannot Conform without Scandal. By Scandal they mean (as your Lordship doth) with the Scripture generally) The drawing, or encouraging others to do what they are not in Conscience convinced they may do.  
My Lord,  
There is a real Disposition, yea, longing Desires among the Non-Conformists towards a Protestant Union, and it rejoiceth their very Souls to find some such as your Lordship among the dignified Ciergie, and do bless God for you. There are some such also in England, who, tho' they Conform, do it not blindfold, nor upon Corrupt Inducements. We believe there are many of you, who can in the fear of God, profess you have again, and again considered the Ecclesiastical Laws, and according to your Duty, as you believe, you have been, and are obedient, not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience sake, and that you are Sound Protestants, and as great an Eyesore to the Papist, as any among the Dissenters. However we are as Confident, That there are others, who are pretendedly at least great zealots for Conformity, and yet Aimrather at an Union between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, who consequently hate a Protestant Dissenter much more than they do a Papist, not being ashamed to profess They would rather be Papists, than Presbyterians.  
There are many such, who delight not only to misrepresent the Dissenter, as your Lordship will perceive by the Reverend Mr. Baxter's reply to your Postscript, but moreover, to Unchurch all the Foreign Reformed Churches, who have not an Episcopal Ordination, Thus Mr. Conold in his Notion of Schism Dedicated to Anthony Lord Bishop of Norwich, p. 14. asserts, That he who is out of this Line of Apostolic Succession, and exercises any Ministerial Office without the Commission of Episcopal Ordination is but a Lay-Imposter, and a Schismatic from the Catholic Church, and (p. 43.) speaking of Foreign Protestant Churches, adds, But if any of them have a Ministry which have no other Orders than their own Usurpation, or popular Election, I know not how to Acquit them from being Shismaticks from the Catholic Church. But yet though he is so severe in Censuring the Foreign Protestant Churches as Schismatics from the Catholic Church, he is as Merciful to Foreign Papists, for in his Epistle to the Reader. As for those of your Religion [vid. the Popish] who live under the Laws of the Romish Dominions, I have a great Charity for them (says he) for they can plead Submission to their own Superiors, and I am apt to believe, that plea may be very considerable, when they come to appear before the Prince of Peace and the God of Order.  
There having been some such in the Church of England ever since the first Reformation, they have impeded all Essays for a Protestant Union, and have done their utmost rather to Accommodate the Differences between Us and Rome, whereby Instead of Relaxations and Abatements towards Dissenters. The Church of England has made the Terms of Communion the more difficult and uneasy unto us, to the heightening and increasing the Divisions, and at this very day will be at the same work, wherein, unless timely prevented, they may succeed. We beseech your Lordship therefore to animate your Brethren, who are hearty to the Protestant Interest to Consider with just regards the tender Consciences of Dissenting Protestants, and to appear in making a brisk Opposition to those, who under pretence of making the Church of England the more Grand, and August designs her Ruin by bringing her into her Ancient Slavery to the Church of Rome.  
'Tis to be wished a Bill Comprehensive of all Sound Protestants might pass in Order to the uniting us, But if that cannot be, a Bill lesser Comprehensiven with an Indulgence will very much contribute to the Church's peace, and the strengthening the Protestant Interest. To which end, That the Advice your Lordship gives p. 62. to the end, may be regarded by all, is the Prayer of him who highly values your Lordship's great Learning, your Christian Temper, and Moderation, and who is  
Your Humble Servant. April. 1. 1682.   

The Errata.  
PAge 7. l. 11. deal who. p. 9 l. 2. After then add, my work is. l. 18. deal For. l. 35. for they r. the Dissenters, p. 19 l. 22. for if r. of. p. 20. l. 23. After then add the Bishops of. p. 21. l. 32. for Families r. Faculties. p. 23. l. 7. after Objection add has offered: p. 26. l. ult. r. of. p. 28. l. 10. deal of p. 32. l. 18. r. it has. p. 33. l. 10. d. and. l. 28. r. Proctors, p. 34. l. 11. r. Scultingius. p. 35. l. 15. r. Intelligencers. p. 40. l. 1. r. pages. p. 41. l. ult. add That is several Popish Vestments. p. 42. l. 9 after affairs add than in Civil. p. 44. l. 6. after drunkenness add does. p. 48. l. 5. r. Superstitious. p. 55. l. 13. r. Prince. p. 59 l. 19 r. Parity. p. 60. l. 10. r. to. l. ult. r. 2. p 71. l. 27. r. Rites. l. 38. after that add are. l. ult. r. why. p. 72. l. ult. r. Wild.   

To the READER.  
THE design of the ensuing Treatise is only to show, how necessary 'tis, that the Church of England make the Terms of Communion with her somewhat more easy. For 'tis certain, that whatever some suggest concerning the fancy, humour and obstinacy of Dissenters; He who is the searcher of hearts doth know, that they are Conscientious in their Nonconformity, Can they with a good Conscience conform, they would, but seeing they cannot, (as appears by what is insisted on in this Treatise) what must they do? They must not sin and offend God to please men.  
'Tis not altogether improbable but that a Conformist in his perusal of the arguments in the following discourse, may be supplied with an answer satisfactory to himself, and many others, notwithstanding which, the Dissenters may still feel more conviction in those arguments for their Nonconformity, than in any reply made to 'em, and therefore cannot Conscientiously conform.  
Hitherto the Dissenters have been reproached as a people, who cause divisions in the Church about Trifles, who though they won't now Conform, if there were a Bill of Comprehension on no easier Terms than a complying with the use of the Liturgy, they would generally do it: I have therefore upon a seririous and deliberate weighing all things, thought it meet at this season (when a late book of a singular brother calls aloud for it,) to give an impartial account of the Dissenters sentiments, which are more general concerning Conformity, having done it impartially, rather indeed like an Historian than a Logician.  
The great thing I abide by, and judge myself obliged to defend is. 1. That there are arguments powerful enough in the judgements of some, to fasten plain convictious on 'em, concerning the unlawfulness or inexpediency of the use of the present Ordinary Lord's days Service; Though I may not be convinced by them, yet others may. 2. That so long as any Dissenters are thus fully convinced of the unlawfulness or inexpediency of the Liturgy, they must not act contrary to the plain conviction of their Conscience and Conform; If then there be any peace in the Church, it must be either by a familiar, sweet and plain discovery of their mistake, or by a relaxing somewhat the rigour of the Terms of Communion. The Forms by many years' experience we find impossible, and therefore as the Bishop of Cork and Ross expresses it, the only probable expedient for Union left us is the later.  
In the following History I must say, that I have confined myself to urge those arguments of the Old Non-conformists, which are against those parts of the Liturgy now in being, and I have done it without passion or partiality. My great care hath been to propose with indifference their judgement, to the end the Reader, considering it with the same equal mind as 'tis written, may be the better enabled to pass a Candid Censure on the whole.  
I have not been curious in the choice of words, for my design is only the information of the vulgar, to whose capacity I have in the most familiar manner I could, adjusted the following discourse: That the God of Heaven will enable us all to follow peace with all men, and Holiness (for we must not so far pursue peace, as to do any unholy thing in order thereunto) ought to be our daily Prayer to the God of Heaven.  
April 3. 82. Farewell.   

An Account of the Non-Conformists Principles, concerning the Terms both of the Clergy, and Lay-Conformity.  
SINCE the 24th of August 1662., there have been many a Nonconformist, even among the Ministers, and People of England, who, though they have different apprehensions concerning the Terms of Conformity, do yet all agree in their not submitting unto all that is required by the Act of Uniformity. There are some among the Ministers, who can Conscientiously comply withal that is enjoined the people, and there are others, that cannot.  
That the Reader may with the greater clearness understand, wherein the principal grounds of Nonconformity consist, I will with the greatest impartiality attempt the giving a particular account of the Principles of those, who are now most commonly known by the name of Dissenters. Not that I design to insist on all those principles, they profess to embrace, as they are sound Christians, and good Protestants, but only to show, what their Judgement is, as they are Dissenters from the Church of England.  
1. There being a great difference between the Terms of Conformity imposed on the Ministers, and those enjoined the People, there are some among the Nonconforming Ministry, who can submit unto the impositions laid on the people, but not unto what is exacted from the Ministers. They can hear, yea read the ordinary Lord's days Service, and join in the Communion of the Church, but yet cannot Assent, and Consent to every thing contained in the 39 Articles, Book of Common Prayer, and Homilies already extant, and such as shall hereafter be set forth, because they are fully convinced, that there are several things contained in those Books, which are not agreeable unto the Word of God, and because, they cannot divine what may be inserted in the Book of Homilies, hereafter to be published, and are loath to subscribe to they know not what. These have so great an advantage against the Conformists, that Dr. Stilling fleet, when he first entered on the controversies about the Terms of the people's Communion with the Church, waved that of the Ministers Conformity. As these are Non-conformists, so in their writings they triumph over the Conformists; But then as they do ordinarily separate from the Communion of the Church, and erect orderly Congregations for the Administrations of all Ordinances, they have not that advantage which other Nonconformists have; For say the Conformists unto 'em, seeing you look on the terms of Lay-Communion to be lawful, and to show so much, you do occasionally hold Communion with us, your Communion ought to be fixed and ordinary, and that because the consideration of the Curches' peace, and the authority of our Governors in the enjoining what is confessedly lawful, should oblige your Consciences.  
There are several things replied. First, The Ministers, being consecrated unto God in that Holy Function of the Ministry, dare not look back, they commit Sacrilege should they withdraw themselves from the Ministry, for woe unto them if they preach not. Secondly, The great necessity there is of their preaching, in order to the reforming the people; Moreover, they add, that they do not separate from the Church, they do but preach as Lecturers, or Curates unto the Parish Ministers.  
In this controversy, I'll not engage myself, for my business is principally designed to give a right state of the controversy, and, so far as I can, to offer somewhat in the Non-conformists defence, which as to this particular, shall be only to clear them from that reproach which is cast on them, about their going to Church, to Divine Service, and the Communion, and yet do not conform as Ministers. The answer is easy, viz. There is much more than these things required of them; Viz. Subscriptions as enjoined by the Act of Uniformity, besides the abjuring the Covenant, to the which several, who have nothing to offer against the ordinary Lord's days Service, and the other Terms of Lay-Communion, cannot yield their Consciences.  
2. There are other Nonconforming Ministers, who cannot conscientiously conform either unto the Terms imposed on the Minister or People. Of these there are two sorts.  

(1.) Some, who look on the particular forms of Prayer, imposed on all to be Lawful, but not Expedient.  
(2.) Others who consider this particular form of Prayer to be Unlawful.   
1. Of the first opinion are several Presbyterians, if not some Congregational Divines. For the clearer understanding their Sentiments, we must consider.  
1. That there is a difference between the lawfulness of set forms of Prayer in Thesi, and in Hypothesi; A form of Prayer in general may be lawful, but this, or the other set form in particular, sinful. In the Popish Mass Book there are several forms of Prayer, which are by sound Protestants esteemed sinful, not because they are forms, so much as because they are such forms. There are very few, besides some Independents and Anabaptists, who judge all forms of Prayer, because they are forms, to be Unlawful.  
2. There is also a difference between the lawfulness of a form, and its expediency. A Stinted Liturgy may in some cases be both lawful and expedient, and in other, though in it  lawful, yet highly inexpedient. For aught I can say to the contrary, a set form of preaching is as lawful as a set form of Prayer; and 'tis manifest, that there was a time in the beginning of Edward the 6ths. Reign, that the making Sermons for the Ministers, was as convenient as the making Prayers for them, such was the ignorance, peevishness and contentiousness of those in Holy Orders; That a stinted form was as necessary to be used in preaching as 'twas in praying, for which reason as an English Liturgy was drawn up for the Ministers help in prayer, a Book of Homilies was prepared to be read instead of preaching, unto both which, at first, all such as had not a Licence were equally obliged. But though a stinted form of preaching be in itself lawful, doth it therefore follow that 'tis always expedient? The like may be said of a form of prayer.  
3. That about things lawful, that is, about such things as are in their own nature indifferent, enquiry must be made after their expediency or inexpediency pro hic, & nunc. For many things which are in Thesi lawful, are yet in Hypothesi, because of their inexpediency sinful. To eat flesh is in itself lawful, but to eat flesh offered unto Idols when another acquaints thee with it, is inexpedient, and therefore sinful. There are many things that are lawful, which because they edify not, but offend, and grieve such for whom Christ died are inexpedient, yea as so circumstantiated, are unlawful, and cannot without sins be complied with.  
The Apostle Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians doth somewhat amply treat of this point, where he says, that though all things are lawful, yet all things are not expedient, that is, as the Apostle himself explains it, all things edify not; All things, (i. e.) all indifferent things are lawful, but not at all times, in every circumstance for God's glory, and therefore not expedient. In the exercise of our liberty about things indifferent, if we will follow the Apostle Paul, we must take heed that we do nothing that affords grief, or proves a stumbling block to those for whom Christ died, but must endeavour that all things be to the Glory of God, and the edification of Souls. This is evident from Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 10.  
If then the Ordinary Lord's days Service be in itself lawful and indifferent, yet if its use be a grief and a stumbling block to those for whom Christ died, no way conducive to God's glory, nor the people's edification, its use is so very inexpedient as to become unlawful, yea sinful, unto such as know so much, the which inexpediency remains, notwithstanding any Humane Law to the contrary. For when the case is as here stated, the word of God shows it to be inexpedient, and therefore cannot be altered by any law of man.  
That the Lord's days Service, though in itself lawful, is in its use inexpedient. Some may argue thus, namely, It becomes all good Christians to mind the Peace and Edification of those Churches, where they live, and unto this we ought to have a special regard in the exercise of our liberty about things indifferent. There is a manifest division among Protestants in this Kingdom, the which hath proved very pernicious unto the Protestant Religion, and if increased, cannot but be much more mischievous, and therefore all men must take heed, that in the use of their liberty they do not what necessarily tends to the multiplying divisions. If we cannot Unite the Conformist and Nonconformist, we must do all, that lawfully we can, to fix an Union between Conformist and Conformist, yea, and between Nonconformist and Nonconformist; This every judicious and sober Christian will I presume grant, from which concession, 'tis thus argued, even from the supposition of the lawfulness of the Lord's day, Service against the expediency of its use pro hic, & nunc.  
If a Non conformists using this service dothnot contribute any thing towards an Union with the Conformist, but tends to the dividing the Nonconformist, though the service be in itself lawful, yet its use is not expedient.  
But a Non-conformists using this Service doth not contribute any thing towards an Union with the Conformist, [As Mr. Read's experience does evince, for says he in his case, Though we yield as far as we can in things lawful, there is no Union, no Peace nor Agreement to be had with such men,] but tends to the dividing of the Non-conformists, as is most manifest to any that will but deliberately consider the general practice of the Dissenting Brethren. Therefore the use of the Lord's days Service pro hic & nunc highly inexpedient, and not to be done.  
The multiplying divisions among good Protestants cannot be for God's glory, nor for the edification of the people, but has been, and still is a stumbling block unto some, and great grief unto others for whom Christ died, and therefore a man should rather suffer, than use it. 'Tis quaeryed by some, whether or no the generality of Non-conformists do esteem the use of the ordinary Lord's days Service expedient? In answer unto which, I may safely assert, that the generality of the Non-Conformists do at least consider the Conforming unto the Lord's days Service so very inexpedient, that they cannot Conscientiously comply with it; This is manifest from their avowed Principles and Practices.  
1. Their Principle is, that in matters of Religion, whatever is in itself lawful and pro hic, & nunc expedient, is their Duty; The expediency of a lawful thing makes it Duty. It has therefore been the Conscientious endeavour of Non-conformists to find out the expediency of those things which are lawful, (i. e.) whether the use thereof is for God's glory, and the edification of the people, and they judge themselves bound in Conscience to do whatever lawfully they may, to the end God may be glorified, and the edification of immortal souls advanced.  
2. The Practice of the Non-conformists hath been by this Rule, as they dare not do what is to God's dishonour, so they are afraid to omit what will be for God's glory, and for edification. Their being turned out of their places to the impoverishing the families of some, the great prejudice of all, does evince they cannot venture on the doing what is to God's dishonour. Their grievous sufferings on the account of their public meetings do as manifestly demonstrate, that they are afraid to omit what is for God's glory, and the edification of the people.  
To thief considerations add, that if these Conscientious Non-conformists had been convinced, that the use of the ordinary Lord's days Service had been both lawful and expedient, that is, had been for God's glory, and the people's good, would they have lived so many a year in the neglect and omission of so excellent a duty? What, do they make conscience of one duty, but no conscience of another? Surely, I cannot believe it.  
For this reason I think myself obliged to conclude, that the true reason why the generality of the Nonconforming Ministers, who do not use this Service, is because they think it inexpedient, they believe it is not for God's glory, nor for edification, they fear that should they use it, they should dishonour God, and be a scandal and grief to many for whom Christ died. But,  
II. There are others, who consider the particular forms of worship, appointed in the Liturgy for the ordinary Lords days service, to be unlawful, of this opinion are some Presbyterians, the Congregational generally, and the Anabaptist. Here I'll give the sense of the moderator sort of those, who look on the present Liturgy, as what cannot by them be used without sin; The which I'll do without an engaging myself so far in their defence, as to espouse their quarrel.  
As for my part, I think moderation becomes all Christians, especially English Protestants, in a day wherein they are in danger of being destroyed by the common enemy, the Papist. This is not a time to fall out with one another, and quarrel about lesser things, for now the great and weighty matters of our Religion are in hazard, there must be an exercise of Christian charity towards each other. Let every man give that liberty to the conscience of another, which he expects should be given his own, for while the World endures, there will be as different apprehensions about lesser matters, as there are different complexions among men, and therefore there must be mutual forbearance, or there will be no peace among us.  
Methinks it looks ill, when men assume to themselves an unaccountable infallibility, the which is attended with a proportionable severity, in imposing their own sentiments on others. This is not only common among the Papists, but also to be observed too much among all sorts of Protestants, whether Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independent or Anabaptist, and is, I verily believe, one great reason of those violent Dissensions that are among us, every one thinks, that such as descent from them, do so without any solid reasons, and therefore not to be tolerated. Thus some of the Conforming Clergy esteem the Non-conformists dissent from them, to be both unreasonable and intolerable, and some Dissenters, it may be, are even with the Episcopal in those censures they pass on them, and among the Non-conformists, some, who only desire that the subscriptions and abjuring of Covenants be removed, are willing enough that the Liturgy be established with but a few amendments, the which may be done by a Comprehensive Bill, that hath nothing of Indulgence in it.  
But really how weak soever the greatest part of the Non-conformists are, 'tis too manifest, that they think that there are other Blocks which lie in their way to Conformity, than subscriptions and abjuring, whose Consciences should be regarded, and who stand as much in need of an Indulgence, as others do of a Comprehension. If the Bill of comprehension should be comprehensive enough to take me in, I think myself obliged to do my utmost that such Conscientious persons, who through weakness cannot do as much as myself, be at least indulged.  
Conscience is a tender thing, and is really the immediate director of our actions, against the plain convictions of which we must not go. No Authority is sufficient to oblige any man to act against the plain convictions of conscience; For which reason, seeing the Dissenters are fully convinced in Conscience, that they cannot lawfully conform to the present Terms of Lay-Communion, there must be either some alteration of the Terms, or some must suffer for Conscience sake, whence then to show the necessity of altering some things, even for a comprehension, and the indulging in other things for the ease of tender Consciences. I'll give the Reader an Historical Account of some of their reasonings against the Terms of Lay-Communion, the which I will produce only to this end, namely to show, that the reasons are such as may lay convictions on the Consciences of good and honest; if not learned men. Though men of great learning may be able to answer them, yet if they be such as are unanswerable in the judgmenr of the Dissenters, 'tis sufficient for the purpose for which I produce them. Those arguments may be strong in the judgement of some, which are not so in the opinion of others. My province then is only to propose, not to defend the arguments that are cogent in moving some Dissenters to conclude, that as Laymen, they cannot conform unto the imposed Terms of the Church of England.  
For to the complete Communion of Laymen, there is required a conformity, not only to the ordinary Lord's days Service, but moreover unto their Modes of Administering the Sacraments. But that unto this they cannot conform, I will essay particularly to evince, by showing more generally, why they can't conform to the Terms imposed on the people, and then more particularly why they can't submit unto the Rubric about baptising their children, nor Communicate with them in the Lord's Supper, and in fine give several reasons, why others can't with a safe Conscience attend on the Reading of the ordinary Lord's days Service.  
1. Why some cannot Conscientiously comply with the Terms of Communion, imposed by the Church on the people.  
1. More generally; Because there are so many things which the Church of England acknowledges to be in their own nature indifferent, that are made so necessary apart of Religion, as to be Terms of Communion with them. They take the Word of God contained in the writings of the Old and New Testament to be the only Rule of the whole, and of every part of their Religion, whence what is enjoined them, as so necessary a part of Religion, as to be made a Term of Communion, they cannot conform thereunto, unless it be agreeable to the Word of God. A Term of Christian Communion is a very necessary part of Christ's Religion, the non-embracing which deprives a person of the benefit and advantage of the Sacraments, and therefore they must be no other, than what our Lord Christ has in his Word made so. If any man, or society of men assume unto themselves a power concerning matters of Religion, which Christ never gave them, they think they cannot be faithful unto Christ, if they subject themselves unto them in their exercise of such an irregularly assumed power. Christ Jesus is the Sole Lord of his Church, and Lawgiver in it, and therefore the alone Author of the whole of Christian Religion, for which reason, they cannot receive any such additions as are made merely by men, as parts, much less as necessary parts of Christian Religion, they know that there are some who say, the Imposition may be sinful, when a compliance therewith is a duty; But this in matters of Religion, especially in the present case they do not understand, because when lawful Authority commands any thing sinfully, the great reason why 'tis sinful is, because 'tis in other manner than according to the Word of God, but if the command be not according to God's Word, how can their obedience be so? All obedience is to a command, and such is the connexion between the command and the obedience, that we must consider the obedience to be as is the command; If the command be out of the Lord, and sinful, the obedience thereunto cannot be in the Lord, and a duty. If the command be not for the Lord, but against him, the obedience cannot be for the Lord. But that our obedience must be in, and for the Lord, is acknowledged by the Church of England.  
But there are many things in their own nature, according to the confession of the Church os England indifferent, which yet are made so necessary a part of Christian Religion as to be enjoined as Terms of Christian Communion. Whoever conscientiously refuses to be present at their public Prayers, or to kneel at the Sacrament, is, by the 27th. Canon, deprived of the Sacrament, yea, and though the Minister, who shall wittingly administer the same to notorious offenders, and perjured villains incurs not for such a default, the pain of Suspension; Yet no Minister when he celebrateth the Communion, shall wittingly Administer the same to any but to such as kneel, under pain of Suspension, nor under the like pain to any that refuse to be present at Public Prayers, according to the Orders of the Church of England. Thus not only a form os Prayer, but this particular form of Prayer, in which form there are many things, with which these Dissenters cannot comply, are made so necessary a part of Religion, that if they conform not unto them, they are denied the Lord's Supper, and what Minister soever admits such unto the communion is liable unto a suspension, a greater punishment than is threatened against those Ministers, who admit such as commit the horrible sin of perjury. Moreover though they are convinced in conscience they sin if they kneel, yet they cannot be admitted unto the Lord's Supper unless they kneel,  
Let us put the best sense on these things, and 'tis this; As the notorious offender and perjured villain cannot be admitted to the Sacrament, because he complyes not with God's Terms, the Holiest man on earth cannot be admitted, unless he complies with Man's Terms. But what is this less than setting up man's posts with Gods, or a setting as high (if not a higher) value on the precepts of men, as on the commands of God? But seeing our Lord Christ has purchased a liberty for them, whereby they may be admitted to the Sacrament on easier Terms than Man will permit, they must abide by this liberty in doing which they do, but discharge their duty in asserting the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Sole Author of the whole of Christian Religion, and of all the Terms of Christian Communion. But,  
2. To be more particular in showing why they cannot join with the Church in the Sacraments; In doing which I'll contract myself in giving you no other than what I find in the Altar of Damascus.  
(1.) Of Baptism.  
I'll only offer a very little that is insisted on in my Author, and therefore will pass by that passage in the Second Prayer before Baptism, [where the Remission of sins is desired by Spiritual Regeneration; As if the pardon of sin consisted rather in the Sanctification of the soul, than the dissolving the obligation to punishment:] and consider the Interrogatories which are these, Dost thou forsake the Devil, and all his works. etc. Dost thou believe, etc. Wilt thou be Baptised in this Faith? The Child hath not Understanding, nor Faith, nor desire of Baptism; And how be it the child had Faith, can the Godfather tell absolutely, and in particular, that this Child whom he presenteth, doth Believe, desire Baptism, or forsake the Devil? It is a foolish thing, and great mockery of God's service, to demand that of Infants, which was at the first demanded of such as were come to years of discretion, and were converted from Gentilism. The children of Faithful Parents are within the Covenant of Grace, whereupon it is that they are made partakers of the Seal of the Covenant; The Covenant being made with the Parents in their Faith, and not the Faith of the child, the Parents should give confession of their own Faith, and not of the Faith of the child, which is not: because their own Faith is the condition of the Covenant upon their part, whereupon God promiseth to be their God, and the God of their Seed. Whereupon also it followeth, that the Father of the child should present the child, and give confession, and not another, because the Covenant is made with him, and his Seed, and the child is his Seed, not the Seed of another, whom we call Godfather; The Natural Father is the proper Godfather. Others may be Witnesses of Baptism, but that the Father should, or can resign this duty to another, I deny.— After that the child is dipped, [or sprinkled] and Baptised in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the Priest maketh a Cross upon the child's Forehead; Saying, We receive this child into the Congregation of Christ's Flock, and do sign with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ Crucified, and Manfully to fight under his Banner against Sin, the World, and the Devil, and to continue Christ's Faithful Soldier and Servant unto his Life's end. He saith not we have received, but we do receive, as if the child were not received by Baptism, but by Grossing, or as if the child were again received by Crossing, which was before received by Baptism. This signing with the cross is no decent gesture, it is rather like a jugglers gesture, than a gesture of decency and comeliness; It must then be used as a Symbolical and Significant Rite. But we have no such sign set down in the Word of God, as to make two Cross Lines in the Air with our fingers, to represent the cross of a Tree, or to signify unto us, that we should not be ashamed of the Cross of Christ. etc. Thou shalt make unto thyself no Image, that is any Representation forged in thy own brain to be set up in the Worship of God. Admit once the Aerial Cross in Baptism, ye cannot refuse to set up the material Cross, and the Rood in the Kirck, nor the Wooden or Stone Crosses in the Highway; For all may signify the same thing, that the Cross on the forehead; And by this reason every one may wear a Silver Cross upon his forehead also. Further, not only other significant crosses material may be brought in upon this ground, but also the rest of the beggarly ceremonies of Baptism, to deface, and deform the purity, plainness and simplicity of Christ's institution. As to put salt into the mouth of the child, to anoint with Oil the breast and shoulders, and the top of the head with Holy Crism, and to put a burning Taper into his hands, etc. for these Toys had their own glorious signification, as well as the Cross. Lastly, What doth it signify, but that which is already signified in baptism. The same valour and courage, and constant profession, and fight under Christ's banner, is a part of that Grace which is sealed by baptism. But besides that it is a significant toy, it is also esteemed effective, for they say, that the infant by it is dedicated to the service of him that died on the cross. Who did sanctify this sign for such an use? Are men able to do it? It was made also a consecrator of Water, Bread and Wine, and all other Holy things in time of Popery, for the which corruption we ought to abhor it. Again we Sign this child in token, that he shall continue Christ's faithful Soldier to his Lives end; These words [shall continue to his lives end,] compared with the like in the Epistle of the 22 Sunday after Trinity [God shall continue the work in you to the end] show unto us, that we use the cross for a pledge to give assurance to the child to continue in grace to the end, which if it be so, than it serveth to work faith, and is used effectually, saith Parker. Hooker saith, that there cannot be a more forceable means to avoid that which may deservedly procure shame. If it be in some sort a means to secure from confusion Everlasting, than it is in some sort effective of Grace. In a word, suppose there were no sinful use of it for the present, the horrible abuse of it in times bypast, and the danger and peril of these same abuses are sufficient to remove it out of this Holy Sacrament, where it is set up in such honourable State, beside the Lord's own Altar.  
(2.) Of the Lord's Supper.  
I'll not mention all is said of this, I'll only apply myself to what is said of Kneeling, which gesture, though not according to Christ's example, nor the nature of the Ordinance, is imposed as a necessary condition of our Right in the Lord's Supper; whatever right Faith and Repentance may give unto this Ordinance, no jus in re, no right in it is acknowledged to any among us, but such as Kneel, whereby Kneeling is made by the Church of England a necessary Term, and yet looked on but as indifferent, as if a man had been invested with a power of making a thing in itself indifferent, to become a necessary part of Christ's Religion; But to give you what I find in the Altar of Damascus; Where 'tis said. That without any farther, he and they [viz. Minister and People] Communicate Kneeling after the Popish manner, that is, with a gesture of Adoration, when they are beholding the signs, taking, eating, drinking, and inwardly in their minds should be meditating on the signification, and the fruit, and benefit which they reap by Christ Crucified, and consequently cannot without distraction of mind from this employment of the Soul, and Meditation, pray a set, and continued prayer to God, or cannot meditate and be employed in the present action without distraction of mind from the prayer, and therefore either they pray irreverently, which they will not grant, or do Communicate this Gesture of Adoration to the other employments of the Soul, and of the outward senses and members of the body, about the objects presented, which they must grant, and so nill they, will they, they must be forced to confess, that they commit idolatry. Kneeling is no decent gesture for a Table, for commodity, they say, maketh decency, but this gesture is confessed not to be commodious, as sitting is; It is then enjoined for another reason. to wit for Reverence, but to kneel for Reverence and Religious respects is ever Adoration in the highest degree. To kneel for reverence, that is, to adore, is not enjoined here for prayer, neither may prayer lawfully be enjoined in time of another action, and part of God's worship to be performed by the same person. And suppose it were enjoined for the short prayer uttered by their priest, yet are not the outward senses, and inward faculties employed principally on that prayer, but upon another action, principally and directly intended in the institution, whereas the other is only superadded by man. Let them frame their Canons and Acts as they please, and suppose, that they kneel for reverence of the Sacrament, common sense may teach us, that it is done for that respect, either totally or principally; but let it be in the least part, yet that least part is idolatry. Beside the idolatry of this gesture, it cannot stand with the right manner of celebration, and rites of the institution. For when they kneel for adoration they cannot carry the cup from hand to hand, nor divide the elements among themselves, as Christ hath commanded. In many places the people are raised from their kneeling to come about the Table there to receive kneeling, and then are directed to their places again, saith the Author of the Survey. The priest giveth the Bread and the Wine, to every one severally, out of his own hands. When the cup is to be carried from one to another, the communicant is too profane (in their opinion) to reach it, the Priests Holy hand must take it from one, and give it to the other: but Christ willed his Disciples to divide it among themselves, and it was carried from hand to hand indeed, after the manner of the last paschal cup. When Christ therefore gave the Bread and the Wine, he said in the plural number, take ye, eat ye, etc. The English priest speaketh in the singular number, when he giveth the elements, he annexeth not Christ's words containing a comfortable promise, and uttered in an Enunciative form, but other words invented by man, and in form of a prayer, converting one part of God's worship into another, or else confounding them.  
By this 'tis manifest that many Ministers may conscientioufly refuse to conform to the Terms imposed on the people. They can no more satisfy their consciences in complying with the Terms of Lay-Communion, than others can with those of the Ministers Conformity.  
Moreover.  
II. As they cannot hold Communion with the Church in the Holy Sacraments, and consequently not comply with what is required of the people in order thereunto, so neither can they with a safe Conscience join in the ordinary Lord's days Service. They cannot conscientiously approve of many things in that service, unto which they must give their approbation if they conform thereunto.  
Whoever conforms doth thereby show his approbation of what he conforms unto. To what a man conforms, to that he manifests his good liking, why is it that some cannot conform unto the By-Offices, but because they do not approve of them, and why do any conform to the ordinary Lord's days Service, but because they approve of it, which is as much as if it had been said, Conformity is an Overt Act of Approbation, 'tis in practice an Approving the thing.  
But some scrupulous Dissenters cannot conform unto the ordinary Lord's days Service without conforming to several things to which they refuse the giving their approbation. By the ordinary Lord's days Service they understand, all that Office that is according to the Liturgy, and Canon of the Church, apppointed to be read Ordinarily on the Lord's day, or to speak in the Common Prayer Dialect, that Service that is appointed to be read ordinarily on Sundays, against the use of which they do more generally argue thus.  
I. If they must conform to the ordinary Lord's days Service, it must be to all according to the Rubric and Canon, or only to some part. But,  
If the latter it will not satisfy the Church, for by refusing to be present at any part thereof, they are to be denied the Lord's Supper, and if when called to show their reason of such their refusal, they speak any thing against either the Service itself, or any Ceremonies, or Rites in use, they are by an Ipso facto Excommunication Excommunicated according to the 4th. and 6th. Canons, whereby to some it seems apparent, that unless their Conformity be full and complete they are as liable to the displeasure and censure of the Church, as if they had not at all conformed. The Minister must read all required, and the people must join with him in it, or be exposed to the severe lash of Ecclesiastical Fulminations; but this many a Dissenter cannot do, neither doth every Conformable Minister in this respect actually conform to the Canon.  
'Tis true every Minister according to the import of the second Article, unto which he that subscribes is obliged to use the form in the said book prescribed in Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and no other; The which was expressly enjoined all Ministers, primo Eliz. Where 'tis said, That all and singular Ministers— in any Parish Church, or other place within the Realm of England— shall be bounden to say and use— all their Common and Open Prayer in such order and form as is mentioned in the said Book, and none other, or otherwise, that is, says Dr. Heylin, neither before nor after Sermon, no other prayer, unless the bidding of prayer with the alone use of the Lord's Prayer, is allowed by the Canon.  
That this is the sense of the Church of England, how contrary soever the practice of her Sons generally is, will appear with conviction to such as soberly consider, that the weightyest arguments which are produced to prove the usefulness of a public Liturgy, are fetched from such Topics, as necessarily infer the unlawfulness of a public praying ex tempore, or by a form of a private Ministers Composing. One great Argument is given us by Mr. Hutton, in the words of the Counsel of Melevis, which is, that a public Liturgy approved of either by a Council or Synod, must be used lest any thing peradventure be otherwise framed contrary unto Faith, either by ignorance, or for want of study, or due meditation, or as others add, lest those Ministers who pray ex tempore, or use a set form of their own composing, should be Immethodical in their Prayers, using Tautologies, or having in 'em Nonsense, and several uncomely slips; beside 'tis added, that we must use a public Liturgy, that the prayers of the several Congregations within this Realm, may be sent up unto God in the same words, etc. All which is against the use of all free Prayer, or Prayers Composed by the Minister himself, for which reason many are of an opinion, that the Liturgy was designed to be instead of all other prayer, the which seems to be the meaning of the 14th. Canon, where 'tis expressed, that there must be an using the Liturgy without either diminishing in regard of Preaching, or any other respect, or adding any thing either in the matter, or form thereof.  
But that many among the Dissenters cannot satisfy themselves in abiding by a form of prayer, thus erected to the public disuse of the gift of prayer is very certain, see Dr. Collins on this Subject. Though there are some circumstances wherein a form of prayer is lawful, namely, when the person whose duty 'tis to pray in public has not a gift, in that case to use a form is much better than not to pray at all, which is enough to show that the using a form of prayer is not in itself unlawful, seeing if it had been so, it could never be a duty; However to set up a form in opposition to the public use, if spiritual or free prayer is in the opinion of some, not only a practice unknown to the Church for several hundred years, but moreover contrary to the present dispensation of the Spirit.  
1. They assert that the imposing a public Liturgy thus, is a practice that was unknown to the Church for several hundred years. The Reverend and Judicious Mr. Baxter in his Search for the English Schismatic, asserts; That no One Liturgy was imposed on any National Church, or any Patriarchal for many hundred years after the Apostles days (yea and after Constantine,) but every Bishop or Pastor was the chooser of his words and practice, and as others, a public Liturgy was not Universally imposed until Antichrist did arise, by the power of whose might Gregory's Liturgy in contempt of that of Ambrose was imposed on the Churches, which Liturgy was not received from the Apostles, nor in many years after, but some part had its rise from Pope Sixtus the First, another from Celestin, etc. as Platina in the lives of Sixtus, Celestin, and Gregory does assert. Furthermore Bellarmine himself does acknowledge, that the Bishops of particular Churches ever had allowed 'em a power of making Offices for their own Churches, which point of Bellarmine is confirmed by  evidences in this our own Country, where until the time of the Reformation, there was great diversity in saying and singing in Churches, some following Salisbury use, and some Hereford, some the use of Bangor, and some that of York, and others the use of Lincoln; All which were suppressed by Edward the 6th. in order to the carrying on a farther Reformation, in the Room of which Offices, one only was set up as what did most effectually answer the great design of our worthy Reformers, which was the promoting a thorough Reformation with as much speed as the badness of those times would bear it.  
2. As 'tis thus evident that there was no public form of prayer imposed on any particular Church the first 300 years, nor Universally till Antichrists appearing in the World, and that even then particular Churches enjoyed the liberty of forming Offices for their own particular Churches, in like manner the erecting any one public form, in opposition to the public use of the Gift of Prayer is so contrary to the Gospel dispensation, which is the dispensation of the Spirit, that the Divines of the Church of England cannot but by their practice discover their dislike of such impositions. They do not therefore adhere so firmly unto these forms, but that before Sermon, they use some of their own Composing, which is a sufficient demonstration, that praying extempore, or the public use of a prayer Composed by a Minister in private, is neither unlawful nor inexpedient, and that the Arguments produced from the absurdities of such a practice, to prove the usefulness of a public Liturgy are not cogent enough to command their assent, the which cannot but countenance and justify the Dissent of the Non-Conformists, as they refuse to conform unto the Liturgy as 'tis enjoined, as the only form of prayer to be used in public.  
II. But to be more particular, there are many among the Dissenters who are furnished with such Arguments, as the Reader may find in the Abridgement of that book, which the Ministers of Lincoln Diocese delivered to the King, Anno 1605. as also in a part of the Register, and among the reasons for Refusal of Subscription, exhibited to Cotton Bishop of Exeter by the Devonshire, and Cornish Ministry, and in several other discourses, as in Bayly's Parallel of the Liturgy, with the Mass-book, Ames his fresh suit against Ceremonies, etc. The which have fixed such strong convictions on the Consciences of some Dissenters concerning the unlawfulness of the present Liturgy, that they cannot safely join with any in the use of it. Though some, who have not received such powerful impressions from the weight of those Arguments, can read the Common Prayer, and join with such as do, to the end they may save themselves from the severity of Penal Laws, yet other Dissenters will rather submit themselves to the greatest extremities, than venture to dishonour God by doing what they are convinced is a sin.  
That the Reader may be moved to entertain some charitable thoughts concerning such persons, and that the common objection that is laid in against their Nonconformity, which is Humour and Fancy, and a Peevish Obstinacy, may be fully answered. I'll give an Historical Account of some of those Arguments which do so fully convince some Dissenters, that they cannot without laying an unnatural violence on their Families, conform.  

Argument I.  
I. They are persuaded that according to the Rubric, the same honour is put on the Apocryphal Books, which is due alone to the Sacred Scriptures. For they are appointed to be read as a part of the Old Testament, without any note of difference from the Canonical.  
In a discourse before the Common Prayer concerning the Service of the Church, 'tis asserted that nothing is ordained to be read, but the very Pure word of God, the Holy Scriptures, or that which is agreeable to the same, beside this after the order, how the Psalter is to be read, 'tis said in the Title, how the rest of Holy Scripture is to be read, under which Title several orders are to be found. Namely, 1. The Old Testament is appointed for the first Lessons at Morning and Evening Prayer, so as the most part thereof will be read every year once, and in the 3d. order 'tis said that to know what Lessons shall be read every day, look for the day of the Month in the Calendar following, and there ye shall find the Chapters that shall be read for the Lessons both at Morning and Evening Prayer, and in the Rubric after the Psalms are read 'tis ordered, that then shall be read distinctly with an audible voice, the First Lesson taken out of the Old Testament, as it is appointed in the Calendar, whereby 'tis evident that what is appointed in the Calendar to be read, for the First Lesson, is considered as a part of the Old Testament, the Holy Scripture, the pure word of God; But the Apocryphal books are in the Calendar appointed to be read for First Lesson for almost Two Months together, even from the latter end of September until November 24th, beside the Holy days, on which these books are appointed to be read. To which add that this is done to the constant neglect of reading a great part of the Sacred Scriptures, namely the two books of Chronicles. Solomon's Song, and a great part of the Revelations.  
That 'tis the appointment of the Church to read the Apocryphal books as a part of the Holy Scriptures, is farther confirmed by Archbishop Bancroft, in the conference held at Hampton Court, where (as the abridgement has it,) he taxed Jerom for calling these books Apocrypha, and said he was the first that gave them that name, and called his objections against them, the old Cavils of the Jews; And the Bishops of Winchester affirmed at the same time, that they must needs be held, Canonici ad informandos mores. Canonical for the information of manners. To these I'll add, what Mr. Hutton in his answer unto the reasons of the Ministers of Devon and Cornwall to this very objection. They, are saith he, called Holy Scriptures in a signification at large, because the subject they entreat of, is God, his Love, Power, our Sanctification and Obedience to him. And they may be held Canonical, wholesome Doctrines being thence deduced, though not simply of themselves, yet wherein they agree with the Canon, as also because they may serve as they always heretofore have done, for a rule to direct and order our Conversation aright.  
In this answer, though he seems without the approbation of the Rubric, to make a difference between the Sacred Scriptures, and the Apocrypha books, yet at length falls in with the Bishop of Winchester asserting, that they are a Canon or Rule to direct our Conversation aright.  
But in opposition hereunto, 'tis generally by sound Protestants asserted. 1. That the Apocryphal books are not a part of the Holy Scriptures, the pure word of God. 2. That there are several things appointed to be read, which are not agreeable to the word of God, nor can be defended by any sound Protestant.  
To make this point the more clear, I'll give the Reader an account of what is replied to the distinction of the Bishop of Winchester about the Canon of Faith, and Manners, and then offer what arguments have been urged against this practice of the Church.  
In the second part of the defence of the reasons of the Devonshire and Cornish Ministers, 'tis thus replied to the aforesaid distinction. But that we may farther see how heartless and unsound this distinction of Canonical for manners, but not for Faith is, let us observe how they here make a distinction of faith and manners where none is, for all Doctrines of God's word are (in this respect) Doctrines of faith, whether they concern matters of believing, or of other Conversation of life, wherefore the Apostle hath coupled them together in that place to Timothy, saying, all Scripture given by inspiration of God, etc. showing us thereby, that upon one, and the same divine Revelation, our knowledge and practice both must be grounded. And I would entreat these men that give us this distinction, to tell us whether it be not a point of faith, That we must worship one God, and him after his own manner, reverencing his Name, and keeping his Sabbaths, etc. And whether it be not a point of faith, That we must honour our Parents and Superiors, that we must not Kill, commit Adultery, Steal, Slander, Covet; And whether our Consciences be not bound in these things by the Divine Testimony, as well as in any point of our understanding? surely (unless our Divinity faileth) all the word of God is the object of Faith, that as well which directeth to manners, as that which revealeth mysteries unto us. There is (I confess) a distinction between Faith and Manners, when we come to sort and sever the things contained in the Word, into the kinds of duties imposed, but when we consider them in the Rule and Principle of the word itself, from which the Conscience is certainly informed and bound, there is no difference, but they are all of faith alike: even as the same sap, which in the branches distinct unto leaves and blossoms, was in the Root but one; whence it follows that nothing can be properly Canonical unto manners, but the same was first Canonical unto faith: for we therefore stand undoubtedly persuaded that thus we ought to do, because we first believe that God himself would have us to do so, and hath revealed it to us as his will.  
By this it seems evident that the distinction between Canon of faith and of manners as used by the Bishops, is idle and impertinent, and that therefore notwithstanding all has been said by Mr. Hutton, it remains as an undoubted truth, that the Service Book doth consider the Apocryphas as Canonical, as a part of the Holy Scriptures, the pure Word of God, which is no more than what may be inferred from their confounding the Apocryphal with the Canonical books, as may be seen in their great Bible Authorized to be read, where dividing the books of the Old Testament into Legal, Historical, Sapiential and Prophetical; In the Historical they place 19 books, amongst which they reckon the third and fourth books of Esdras, the books of Tobith and Judith, the two books of Maccabees, and the rest of the Chapters of Esther, making the book of Esther to consist of 16 Chapters, and then to be part of that book. In the Sapiential they place 5 books, whereof they reckon the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for two, calling the book of Wisdom the Wisdom of Solomon. In the Prophetical they place 18 books, of which they reckon Baruch the Prophet, and Susanna, Bell and the Dragon, making the same all one with Daniel, consisting of 14 Chapters; What can be more clear than this, says the Defender of the Reasons? etc. Where to (says the same Author) if we add the book of Homilies, how it divers times calleth these Apocryphal Books Holy Scriptures, in the same sense wherein the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are so called, saying in the alleging Tobith and Ecclesiasticus, the Holy Ghost speaketh so in the Scriptures, thereby giving the same Authority and Title with Zechary, Luke 1. and the Author to the Hebrews Ch. 3. 7. give to the Holy Prophets, in their writing of places out of the Old Testament.  
Thus 'tis evident; That according to the Service Book, and the Sentiments of some great Bishops, the great Bible and Book of Homilies, the Apocryphas is considered as a part of the Holy Scriptures. The which truth abides in its strength, notwithstanding what is argued from the Book of Articles, where 'tis sufficiently manifest, that the Apocryphas are no part of the Holy Scriptures, for this doth but discover the contradiction there is between the book of Articles and the Service book, etc. whereby the Non-Conformists are but supplied with an unanswerable argument against subscription, which I'll give in the words of the Devonshire Ministers: viz. That to subscribe to the Service Book is contrary to our Subscription to the Book of Articles, the 6 Article whereof under the name of Holy Scriptures, understanding only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, there mentioned, whereof the Apocrypha Books are none, and therefore they conclude they cannot safely subscribe, because they shall subscribe to two books, one contrary to another.  
This being so clear, namely, that the Apochriphas Books, are appointed to be read as a part of the Holy Scriptures, and as the Canon and Rule of manners, I'll proceed to show what has been objected against it; Not that I'll trouble the Reader with all, but only with two or three particulars.  
1. Hereby their error, who account these Books Canonical Scripture is confirmed; This was (says the Lincoln Abridgement) the only reason, that moved the third Council of Carthage to decree, that they should be held Canonical, because they had received from the Fathers, that they were to be read in the Church. And Bellarmine makes this one of his best reasons to prove that the authority of these books is Divine and Canonical, because they are now, and have been of old, read by the Church in the public Assemblies; so do the Papists in that Book they have lately Published, called the Three Conversions of England; And Gregory Martin reasoneth thus;" Their own Service book (saith he) appointeth these books of Toby and Ecclesiasticus to be read for Holy Scriptures, as the other. Do they read in their Churches Apocryphal and Superstitious Books for Holy Scriptures? so clear it is that the very Papists are confirmed in their error by this practice of the Church.  
2. The reading these books, though but as the Canon and Rule manners tends so very much to the corrupting the manners of men in some things, that the Dissenters can in no way approve of it.  
In the defence of the Devonshire and Cornish Ministers reasons, 'tis thus argued. If the Apocryphal Books be Canonical as teaching manners, than whatsoever point of manners those books do commend unto us, either by Precept or allowed Example, we not only may but must observe it for Conscience sake, as a divine Rule or Canon.  
'Tis true hereby a late Order, which was that the wicked Dissenters, if poor receive not Alms, will be defended, for 'tis but according to the command in Ecclesiasticus 12. 5. where 'tis expressly said; Give not to the , hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him: lest he overmaster thee thereby. But how agreeable this Precept is unto the pure word of God, or the light of nature, let a common capacity judge, but though this practice is enjoined to the defence of that but now mentioned order, yet there are other allowed, and highly approved practices, which are most odious in the apprehension of the Dissenter, and are really abhorred by all but bloody Papists. For judith's tricking up herself on purpose to tempt and ensnare the heart of Holofernes to uncleanness, her compassing an Irreligious Governor by fraud, by lies, by oaths and protestations in the name of God, to the end she might the more assuredly murder him, is not only an allowed, but a practice highly approved of by the book of Judith, that is appointed to be read in October.  
The children of Israel, though now returned from the Babylonian Captivity, yet to the very time Holofernes was murdered by Judith, they remained under the Government of the Emperor. The Emperor though an Idolater, yet their Lawful Governor, whose Government they should not have shaked off by frauds, by lies, equivocations, and other sinful practices, which yet Judith did to the gaining the greatest applause and commendation; The which is read in the Church as the Rule of manners, whereas in truth, 'tis meet only for the countenancing the unjustifiable treasons of the Papists, to which purpose it has been improved by Saunders de schismate, who inciting the English Ladies, professing the Popish Religion to murder Queen Elizabeth, and all her Favourers, calling her Holofernes, the Heretical Prince, did prove from this example of Judith, that they might do it, without any the least stain or blot to their Religion.  
This is urged in the defence of the reason of the Devonshire and Cornish Ministers, from whence I would query, whether a person fully convinced of that, if the book of Judith must be read as the Rule of manners, this allowed practice of Judith must be in the like case imitated, ought not rather to abandon the reading or hearing of these books, then presume to enter on the practices of murdering by lies, deceits. etc. I verily believe, that the Non-Conformists rather than that they would imitate Judith in these things, would rather be exposed to the worst of miseries, whereby they would more effectually demonstrate to the World the Loyalty of their Principles, than by their Conformity.  
There are several other things that must be practised; if the Apocryphal Books be embraced as the Rule of manners, unto which the Dissenters cannot conform. But designing to be short, I will at this time wave the considering them, and proceed to show the sense, some of the Old Church of England Protestant's had of these books, as I find it in the Abridgement.  
3. The Old Church of the Jews, (saith Dr. Whitaker) never vouchsafed the Apocryphal Books so much honour as to read 'em publicly, which also the Learned hold to be a good precedent for us to follow— The Council of Hippo (says Bishop Jewel) speaking of the Canonical Scriptures, decreed that besides them nothing might be read in the Church. The Council held at Laodicea decreed, on the Sabbath we may not read any books, that be without the Canon, but only the Canonical books of the Old and New Testament. To the like effect Chrysostom speaks, (says the same Jewel,) and as Bishop Jewel, so Bishop Horn, and Bishop Pilkinton asserts, the French Church by the constitutions of Lewes and Charles, were against the reading of the Apocrypha. Whoever will diligently compare what Protestant writers offer against Apocryphal books, with the books themselves will find so many idle stories and fables, so many errors and ill precedents in it, that they cannot but conclude with Dr. Sutcliff. That it is impudence in the Papists, that they match Apocryphal books and Legends, with the Scriptures, or at least read them in the Churches, together with the Scriptures.  
From the whole hath been said on this particular, I infer that 'tis but charity to conclude that some Dissenters may receive such strong convictions concerning the unlawfulness of conforming to this part of the Liturgy, that their Nonconformity may be more justly esteemed the product of Conscience, than the Offspring of obstinacy, and an unreasonable Humour.   

Argument II.  
II. Some Dissenters cannot Conscientiously approve of the Translation of the Psalms, which is read at the ordinary Lord's days service, because 'tis not only imperfect, but moreover in some places senseless and absurd, and in other places false, directly contradicting our last Translation of the Psalms in the Bible.  
The Translation now used is the same set forth in the times of ignorance, when the light of the truth did but begin to dawn in Henry the 8th. days, and is  
1. Imperfect, because among many other omissions, all the Titles, though a part of the original and very useful, are left out.  
2. Senseless and absurd, for Psal. 58. 9 where our Translation has it thus, viz. before your pots can feel the Thorns, he shall take them away with a Whirlwind, both living, and in his wrath. In the Service Book Translation 'tis, or ever your pots be made hot with Thorns, so let indignation vex them, as a thing that is raw. So Psal. 72. 6. He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass. This in the common prayer is Translated thus, he shall come down like the rain into a fleece of Wool. This our Old Protestant divines looked upon as a corruption in the Papists, not to be approved, but can it be less so when done by the sons of the Church of England, Fulk, Withers, Bulkley, Whitaker, and others have blamed the Rhemists' Translation, because 'tis in many places senseless and absurd, for which reason seeing the Translation of the Psalms in the Service Book, is as senseless in some things, as that of the Rhemists is in other, 'tis as much to be blamed, and as little to be approved.  
But this is not all, for this Translation in Henry the 8th, is not only imperfect, absurd and senseless, but moreover in some places contrary to the original, not only in the opinion of Dissenters, but also in the judgement of those who were the Authors of the best Translation that ever was in English.  
1. The Psalter has it in Psal. 17. 4. Thus, because of men's works that are done against the words of thy lips: I have kept me from the ways of the destroyer, but more agreeably to the Original, our Translation is thus, concerning the works of men, by the words of thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer, whereby 'tis apparent, that not men's works that are done against the words of God's lips kept David right, but concerning men's works, David was kept from the paths of the destroyer, by the words of God's lips.  
2. In Psal. 18. 26. The Psalter says, that with the froward, thou shalt learn frowardness, but according to the Hebrew, 'tis as our last translation in the Bible has it, with the froward thou shalt show thyself froward.  
3. In the Psalter Psal. 68 6. 'tis thus, he is the God that maketh men to be of one mind in an house, whereas according to the Hebrew, 'tis God setteth the solitary in Families.  
4. In the Psalter, Psal. 107. 40. Though he suffer them to be evil entreated through Tyrants, but according to the Hebrew in our Bibles; He poureth contempt upon Princes. But,  
5. In Psal. 105. 28. The Psalter says, And they were not obedient unto his word, but the Hebrew, And they rebelled not against his word, or were not disobedient to his word. And in Psal. 106. 30. The Psalter has it; Then stood up Phineas and Prayed, and so the Plague ceased; But our Bibles, then stood up Phinehas and executed judgement, and the Plague ceased, which is not only most agreeable to the Hebrew in this place, but moreover to the History in number 25. 7, 8.  
Such as conform to the ordinary Lord's days Service, must not only show their approbation to the many idle Stories in the Apocryphal books, and give 'em that countenance that alone pertains to the pure word of God; but besides must lay aside the Translation that is most exactly agreeable to the Original, and use one that is not only imperfect, absurd and senseless, but in some things so contrary to the Original. But some Dissenters think that their Conformity in this respect cannot but prove pernicious to the Christian Religion, as it casts a reproach not only on the last and best translation, but even on the Original itself; They know how jealous God is about his word, unto which no additions, diminutions or alterations can be made, but to the provoking the most high, and the wounding their Consciences, and therefore are afraid to conform.   

Argument III.  
III. The third Argument doth more immediately concern the very Service itself, unto which the Dissenters refuse to Conform, because of that similitude, likeness and agreement there is between it and the forms of Prayer, which the Papists use.  
That the Reader may be the more fully acquainted with the true State of this controversy, about the agreeableness there is between the English, and Roman Service Books, and what 'tis the Dissenters aim at by their insisting so very much on it, I must show.  
1. What they say concerning the agreableness that is supposed to be between these Service Books.  
2. How this came to pass; What occasioned our adhering so closely to the Popish Service Book even when we forsook their Communion.  
3. The Reasonings of some Dissenters from that agreeableness is supposed to be between these two books against the English Service.  
First, What they say concerning the agreableness that is supposed to be between these two Service books.  
The Dissenters do out of King Edward's Letter unto the Devonshire and Cornish Rebels give this following account of it, namely. As for the Service in the English Tongue thus manifest reasons for it, and yet perchance it seemeth to you a new Service, and indeed is none other but the old; the self same words in English, which were in Latin. The difference is, that you our Subjects should understand in English, that which before was spoke in Latin. If the Service of the Church was good in Latin, it remaineth good in English, for nothing is altered, but to speak with knowledge, that which was spoke with ignorance. Furthermore these Dissenters add, as I find in their Anatomy of the Service Book. That every piece and parcel of the Liturgy, word for word is out of these Popish pieces, namely the Breviary out of which the Common Prayers are taken, the Ritual, or book of Rites, out of which the Administration of the Sacraments, Burial, Matrimony, visitation of the sick are taken. The Mass-book, out of which the consecration of the Lord's Supper, Collects, Epistles and Gospels, are taken: As for the book of ordination of Archbishops, Bishops and Ministers, that is out of the Roman Pontifical.  
These things being so, whoever pleads for the English Service book, doth so far defend the Romish Mass-book, not that 'tis a defence of the whole Romish Service, for in the Anatomy of the Service Book 'tis acknowledged, that every thing in the Mass-book is not in our Liturgy, though all that is in our Liturgy is word for word in the Mass-book. But so far as our Liturgy is defended, so far that part of the Romish Service is defended, for which reason, the greatest Champions, who among our Church men have most zealously written in defence of the Liturgy, and have been considered by the Church of Rome as men; who have done great Service to the Roman Religion. Thus Whitgift and Hooker, have had their applauses from the Romanists  
'Tis not unworthy observation to find Archbishop Whitgift reproaching Cartwright, and the Dissenters as a people eminently serviceable to the Papist, and Dean Stilling fleet to give the utmost countenance he could thereunto, whereas the truth is, that that on which Whitgift grounds his censure, will not bear it, and though none of Dean Stillingfleet's adversaries have taken any notice of it, that I can find, yet Whitgift himself is the man, who has had from the Jesuits great thanks for what he has written against Dissenters, in defence of the English Service and Discipline.  
That whitgift's Censure concerning the Dissentes subserviency to Popish designs is groundless, being rather the product of his indiscreet passions, than of sound arguings, is evident, in that the great reason given to show that the Dissenters are the Papists promoters, is because they assert that the Papists ought not to be compelled to receive the Supper of the Lord, so long as they continue in their Popery, that is, they ought not to act contrary to their Conscience, nor dissemble with Almighty God, by professing themselves to be Protestants, even when they are really, and in heart Papists; whether this be to gratify the Papist let the impartial Reader judge.  
But that Whitgift has gratified the Papist in his writings against Dissenters; I'll evince by producing what the learned Parker in his Ecclesiastical policy, lib. 1. chap. 33. insists on, in answer to this objection of Whitgift, Bancroft, and others, where he shows how William Reignolds the Jesuit asserts, that John Whitgift in his discourse against Cartwright, has defended the Catholic Cause, and accordingly the said Reignolds in the preface against Whitaker, makes great use of Whitgift, and in the book itself, he sends Mr. Whitaker unto Dr. Whitgift, for a supply of reasons for the confirming their notion about putting of our caps, and making courtesy at the hearing the Name of Jesus. Scultinyns and Stapleton give the same Character both of the writings of Whitgift and Bancroft against the Puritans, even as Gretzer the Jesuit triumphs in Saravias' and Sutcliffs defence of the Episcopal Authority in Civils.  
And as Whitgift, even so Hooker, for the service done the Church of Rome, by what they have writ in defence of the worship and discipline of the Church of England, hath had the praises of the Romanists. This Mr. Walton in the life of Hooker has observed, which is no more than what Dr. King, Bishop of Chichester was acquainted with, as he himself expresses in a letter to honest Isaac. I am glad you mention (says the Bishop) how much value Robert Stapleton, Pope Clement the 8th, and other eminent men of the Romish persuasion have put upon this book, having been told the same in my youth by persons of worth, that have traveled Italy. And what doth this discover less than that such is the agreement between the Service and Discipline of the Church of England, and that of Rome, that whoever pleads for the one, defends the other.  
Furthermore in the Anatomy of the Service Book, we are furnished with an Historical Account of the Papists approving our Liturgy. There be, says the Author thereof, abundance of instances for the Papists approving our Liturgy, witness Mortons' Appeal, Pope Pius the 4th, and Gregory the 13th. offered to Queen Elizabeth to confirm the English Liturgy; Witness Dr. Abbot then Prelate of Canterbury, and Mr. Cambden in the life of Queen Elizabeth, who says the common fame went for truth, that the Pope promised to confirm out of his own authority the English Liturgy, provided her Majesty should rank herself with the Roman Church: To thief I adjoin Dr. Boys, who was a bitter expositor of the English Liturgy, as Heiga by the Doctors of Dowayes appointment was of the Mass, after he hath whetted his teeth upon the Schismatics in his Epistle to Bancroft, he produceth the letter of Pope Pius, for the approbation of the Service Book, and notes also the Testimony of approbation from Bristol, in his motives, Queen Elizabeth being interdicted by the Pope's Bull. Secretary Walsingham wrought so, that he procured two Intelligences to be sent from the Pope, as it were in secret into England, to whom the Secretary appointed a State Intelligencer to be their Guide, who showed them London, and Canterbury service in all the pomp of it, which the popish Intelligencers viewing and considering well, with much admiration they wondered, that their Lord the Pope was so ill advised, or at least ill informed as to interdict a Prince, whose Service and Ceremonies so Symobilized with his own, and therefore returning to Rome they possessed the Pope, that they saw no Service, Ceremonies or Orders in England, but they might very well serve in Rome, whereupon the Bull was recalled, to this also Doctor Carrier, consid. p. 45. a dangerous seducing Jesuit gives ample evidences; The Common Prayer book, (saith he) and the Catechism contained in it, held no point of Doctrine expressly contrary to Antiquity, that is, as he explaineth himself contrary to the Romish Service, etc. Much more might be spoke to this purpose, but I wave it, judging that what hath been already offered is sufficient to evince, that there is, at least in the judgement of many, a very great agreableness between the two service books.  
2. What is it that occasioned the Church of England's adhering to so great a part of the Romish Service Book, even when she forsook the Communion of that Church?  
Whoever considers the State of the Church in Edward the sixth his time, will find that Cranmer and others discovered a propension to drive on the Reformation much farther than they did, but were hindered by the iniquity of the times. Thus Bullinger, as I find it in a difcourse of the troubles of Frankford, reports to Mr. Williams, Whittingham, Gilby and others, that Cranmer Bishop of Canterbury had drawn up a book of Prayers an hundred times more perfect than this we now have, but the same could not take place, for that Cranmer was matched with a wicked Clergy and Convocation with other enemies.  
There were also reasons of a like nature that might hinder the furtherance of the reformation in Queen Elizabeth's days, for even then the ignorance of the vulgar accompanied with a proportionable hatred to true Religion was very great; Whence 'tis that Cambden assures us, that the change of Religion was not suddenly made, but by little and little, by degrees, for the Roman Religion continued in the same State it was first, a full Month, and more after the death of Queen Mary. The 27th of December it was tolerated to have the Epistles and Gospels, the Ten Commandments, the Symbol, the Litany, and the Lords Prayer in the vulgar Tongue. The 22 of March the Parliament being Assembled, the order of Edward the sixth was reestablished, and by act of the same, the whole use of Lord's Supper, granted under both kinds. The 24th. of June by the Authority of that which concerned the Uniformity of Public Prayers, and Administration of the Sacraments. The Sacrifice of the Mass was abolished, and the Liturgy in the English Tongue more and more Established. In the Month of July, the Oath of Allegiance was proposed to the Bishops, and other persons, and in August, Images were thrown out of the Temples and Churches, and broken, and burned.  
Furthermore, as the illness of the times did impeed a sudden Reformation, in like manner the moderate temper, and favourable disposition the Queen had to some part of Popery, was such as hindered a full Reformation; whereupon it was not so far carried on by this Queen, as 'twas sometime before by her Brother Edward the sixth.  
That Queen Elizabeth had a natural propension to favour some part of Popery, is not only manifest from her (I hope) Conscientious conforming so far in Queen Mary's days, as to hear Divine Service according to the rule in the Romish Church, and her oft going to confession, and afterwards when she came to the Throne, her choosing to be Crowned by a Popish Bishop, according to the order of the Roman Pontifical, which had so much in it of the Ceremonies and Superstitions of the Church of Rome, that 'tis thought very probable, the Protestant Bishops would not act in it, but with great alterations, and that therefore she desired 'em not to be engaged in it. But beside this, Dr. Burnet gives us the same Character I have suggested, for says he in his History of the Reformation, Queen Elizabeth receiving some impressions in her Father's Reign in favour, of such Old Rites as he had still retained, and in her own Nature loving State, and some Magnificence in Religion, as well as in every thing else, she thought, that in her Brother's Reign they had stripped it too much of External Ornaments, and had made their Doctrine too narrow in some points, therefore she intended to have some things explained in more general Terms, that so all parties might be comprehended by them. She inclined to keep up Images in Churches, and to have the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament left in some general words, that those who believed the Corporal presence might not be driven away from the Church by too nice an explanation of it. So far Dr. Burnet.  
In pursuance of these resolves, the Queen attempts the accommodating matters of Religion so unto the Romish Clergy, as to take 'em into the Communion of the Church of England, the which end, as Dr. Heylin affirms, she so effectually compassed, that for several years the Papists continued in the Communion of the Church, and when they did forsake it, it was not because they approved not of our Liturgy, but upon political considerations, and because the Council of Trent had commanded it, and Pope Pius the 5th. had Excommunicated the Queen, and discharged her Subjects from their Allegiance, and made the going or not going to Church a sign distinctive, to difference a Roman Catholic from an English Protestant.  
I'll give you the words of Dr. Heylin, they are in his History of Queen Elizabeth. There past another Act for recommending and imposing the book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, according to such alteration and corrections as were made therein by those who were appointed to revise it, as before is said. In the pursuance of which service, there was great care taken for expunging all such passages in it, as might give any scandal or offence to the Popish party, or be urged by them in excuse for their not coming to Church, and joining with the rest of the Congregation in God's public worship. In the Litany first made and published by King Henry the Eight, and afterwards continued in the two Liturgies of King Edward the sixth, there was a Prayer to be delivered from the Tyranny, and all the detestable enormities of the Bishops of Rome, which was thought fit to be expunged, as giving matter of scandal, and disaffection to all that party, or that otherwise wished well to that Religion. In the First Liturgy of King Edward, the Sacrament of the Lord's Body was delivered with this benediction, that is to say, the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for the preservation of thy Body and Soul, to Life Everlasting; The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. which being thought by Calvin and his Disciples to give some countenance to the gross and carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which passeth by the name of Transubstantiation in the School of Rome, was altered into this form, into the second Liturgy, that is to say, take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him, in thy heart by faith with Thanksgiving; Take and drink this. etc. But the Revisers of the book joined both forms together, least under colour of rejecting a carnal, they might be thought also to deny such a real presence as was defended in the writings of the ancient fathers. Upon which ground they expunged also a whole Rubric at the end of the Communion Service, by which it was declared, that kneeling at the participation of the Sacrament, was required for no other reason, than for the signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ given therein unto the worthy Receiver. And to avoid that profanation and disorder which otherwise might have ensued, and not for giving any adoration to the Sacramental Bread and Wine, there bodily received, or in regard of any real and essential presence of Christ's Body and Blood. And to come up closer to the Church of Rome, it was ordered by the Queen's injunctions that the Sacramental Bread (which the book required only to be made of the finest Flower) should be made round, in fashion of the wafers used in the time of Queen Mary. She also ordered that the Lord's Table should be placed where the Altar stood, that the accustomed reverence should be made at the name of Jesus, Music retained in the Church, and all the old festivals observed, with their several Eves; By which compliances, and the expunging of the passages before remembered, the book was made so passable amongst the Papists, that for ten years they generally repaired to their Parish Churches, without doubt or scruple, as is affirmed not only by Sir Edward Cook in his Speech against Garnet, and his charge given at the Assizes held at Norwich, but also by the Queen herself, in a Letter to Sir Francis Walsingham, then being her Resident, or Leaguer Ambassador in the Court of France, the same confessed by Sanders also in his book de Schismate.  
To this Heylin within a few years following adds. And now we may behold the face of the Church of England, as it was first settled and established under Queen Elizabeth. The Government of the Church by Archbishops and Bishops;— The Liturgy conform to the primitive patterns, and all the Rites and Ceremonies therein prescribed, accommodated to the honour of God, and encreafe of piety. The Festivals preserved in their former Dignity, observed with all their distinct Offices peculiar to them, and celebrated with a Religious Concourse of all sorts of people, the weekly Fasts, the Holy time of Lent, the Embring weeks, together with the Fast of the Rogation, severely kept by a forbearance of all kind of flesh, not now by virtue of the Statute, as in the time of King Edward, but as apppointed by the Church in her public Calendar, before the book of Common Prayer, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper celebrated in most reverend manner, the Holy Table seated in the place of the Altar, the people making their due reverence at their first entrance into the Church, kneeling at the Communion, the confession and the public prayers, standing up at the Creed, the Gospels and the Gloria Patri, and using the accustomed reverence at the name of Jesus; Music retained in all such Churches in which provision had been made for the maintenance of it, or where the people could be trained up at least to plain Song; All which particulars were either Established by the Laws, or commanded by the Queen's injunctions, or otherwise retained by virtue of some ancient usages, not by Law prohibited. Nor is it much to be admired that such a general Conformity to those ancient usages was constantly observed in all Cathedrals, and the most part of the Parish Churches, considering how well they were presidented by the Court itself, in which the Liturgy was Officiated every day, both morning and evening, not only in the public Chapel, but the private Closet, celebrated in the Chapel with Organs, and other Musical Instrments, and the most excellent voices of men and children, that could be got in all the Kingdom. The Gentlemen and Children in their Surplices, and the Priests in Copes as oft as they attended the Divine Service at the Holy Altar. The Altar furnished with rich Plate, two fair Gilt Candlesticks with Tapers in them, and a Massy Crucifix of Silver in the midst thereof, which last remained there for some years, till it was broke in pieces by Patch, the fool (no wiser man daring to undertake such a desperate Service) at the solicitation of Sir Francis Knolles, the Queens near Kinsman by the Caries, and one who openly appeared in favour of the Schism at Frankford. The ancient ceremonies accustomably observed by the Knights of the Garter, in their Adoration towards the Altar, abolished by King Edward the 6th, and revived by Queen Mary, were by this Queen retained as formerly in her Father's time— for which she received both thanks and honour from her very enemies, [i. e. the Papists] as appears by Harding's Epistle Dedicatory before his answer to the Apology, etc. So far Heylin.  
Thus from what the sons of the Church, Cambden, Burnet and Heylin have affirmed, 'tis apparent that Queen Elizabeth had a natural propension to favour the Papists, and that this was discovered by her making the Terms of Communion much more easy to the Papists than in King Edward's time, whereby they became the more difficult and arduous to the Protestant Dissenter. I'll only add one observation of the Jesuit Reignold against Whitaker, whereby the Reader may perceive, not only that the Papists take notice how the practice of the Church of England contradicts their Rubric, but also that in the Rubric concerning Apparel, which is now to be found in the Communion Book, even the beginning before morning prayer, 'tis ordered; That the Minister at the time of Communion, and at all other times in his Ministration, shall use such Ornaments in the Church, as were in use by Authority of Parliament, in the second year of the Reign of King Edward the 6th.  
But Queen Elizabeth was not the only cause of driving back the Reformation, but the Clergy themselves had an hand in it, which was sufficiently discovered, when they perceived that her Majesty's Council began to entertain more favourable thoughts of Protestant Dissenters, who continued their cries for a further Reformation.  
Cambden assures us, that about the year 1583, The Queen (who held it for a maxim that she ought not to be more remiss in Ecclesiastical Affairs,) advancing Whitgift from the Sea of Worcester, to that of Canterbury, above all commanded him to re-establish the Discipline of the Church of England, that as then lay dismembered by the connivency of Prelates, the obstinacy of Innovators, and by the power of some great ones, whilst some Ministers— using to their own fantasy new Rites of Services in their private Houses, utterly condemning the Liturgy, and the appointed manner of Administering the Sacrament, as being in many things contrary to the Scriptures, and therefore many refused to go to Church.— To abolish which things, and to reduce 'em in Unity, Whitgift propounded Three Articles to the Ministers, by them to be subscribed. But (adds Cambden) 'tis incredible what controversies and disputations arose upon this— What troubles and injuries Whitgift suffered of certain noble men. So far Cambden.  
But whoever might be so happy as to be throughly acquainted with a just, impartial and particular History of those times would suddenly see, that the true cause of all Whitgifts troubles was his intemperate persecuting Godly and Conscientious men, who rather like a Spanish Inquisitor proposed a multitude of Articles to ensnare, than as a good Pastor to reduce his erring Brethren to the truth; For even when he was most violent in letting out his rage on the Conscientious Dissenter, even than the wicked, the ungodly and profane Priests knew not what it was to be prosecuted for their debaucheries. Neither can it be truly said that the Earl of Leicester was the only great person, that resented the ill proceed of this Bishop, but even the Lord Treasurer Cecil, and her Majesty's Council.  
'Tis sad to consider with what severity Whitgift treated the Couscientious Dissenter, and with what mildness the drunkard, glutton, etc. The which was so palpable, that some zealous Conformists, since that time have judged it necessary to essay the putting some colour on it, as Isaac Walton in the life of Hooker, most Satirically represents the Nonconformist to be much more vile than the drunkard or glutton, even when he could not impeach 'em as being guilty of any such enormities. But that somewhat might be said to expose the Dissenter, and defend the Bishops, an encroachment is made on the divine prerogative and vain man, who cannot but with much difficulty look into his own heart, pretends to see into the secrets of the Dissenter, where he finds so many Spiritual wickednesses that lie hid to lodge, that he must be warm in discovering his abhorrence to such Villainies, judging not according to the outward appearance, but like unto the all-knowing God, according to the heart. I'll give you Mr. Walton's own words, who speaking of the Nonconformists, says. Of this party there were many that were possessed with an high degree of Spiritual wickedness; I mean with an innate restless radical pride and malice, I mean not those lesser sins, that are more visible, and more properly Carnal, and sins against a man's self, as gluttony and drunkenness, and the like, (from which good Lord deliver us) but sins of an higher nature, because more unlike to the nature of God, which is Love and Mercy, and Peace, and more like the Devil, (who is not a glutton, nor can be drunk, and yet is a Devil:) those wickednesses of malice and revenge, and opposition, and a complacence in making and beholding confusions.— Men whom Pride and Self-conceit had made to over-value their own Wisdom, and become pertinacious, and to hold foolish and unmannerly disputes against those men, which they ought to reverence, and those Laws which they ought to obey. As if disputing freely with the Bishop, and not giving him the desired respects by rendering obedience to his commands, even when they could not without sinning against God, had been the Overt Act of that Pride, Malice, etc. which makes men more vile than Gluttony and Drunkenness.  
But 'tis no part of my present province to comment on this notion, but only from it to infer, that as the dignified Clergy did consider the Nonconformity of the Dissenter to be a sin most odious, much more high and great, than that of gluttony, even so 'tis easy to conclude, that what is affirmed in History concerning the Bishops treating the drunkard with more candour than the Conscientious Dissenter, is very true; For which not stronger reason can be assigned, than that the debauchees wickedness, not being so great an impediment to the accommodating the difference between the Church of England, and of Rome, as the Nonconformity of the Dissenter, the wickedness of the former might be tolerated, even when the Dissent of the latter would not be born.  
That this is so, namely, that the Archbishops and Bishops in the respects they showed the ignorant, and scandalous among the Ministry, and the letting out their wrath on the intractible Dissenter as they termed it, was a plain evincement, that they thereby aimed at the gratifying the Papist, will appear with conviction to such as will be so just to themselves, as to weigh impartially the import of those Letters, are added to the end of this Treatise, where he will not only see into the reason, why the Episcopal would by all means hid 'em from the Light, but moreover perceive the matter of fact, I have suggested to be very true.  
That these Letters are nor spurious, nor feigned, but copies from an Anthentick Original is well known to some zealous Sons of the Church, who it may be will be surprised to see that appear in face of the World, which doth so plainly discover what they desire might be concealed.  
In these Letters, 'tis apparent, that when the prosecution was most brisk against Protestant Dissenters, several among the dignified Clergy were very covetous, and scandalous in their Conversations. (Numb. 1.) Even those who antecedently to their preferment, were well affected, when they came to the Cathedral Churches did so strangely degenerate, that the Lord Treasurer Cecil (Numb. 2.) did fear the places did alter the men; whence 'tis that her Majesty's Council in their Letter to the Bishop of London and Canterbury, (Numb. 3.) did observe from the many complaints brought unto them, that the worst of men met with no trouble, when Conscientious and Learned Ministers were greatly molested for their Nonconformity.  
But that which doth most fully discover the temper, and design of Whitgift, as one who acted rather like a Spanish Inquisitor, than a good Protestant, imposing Articles that were of an ensnaring tendency, is what I find in the Letters of the Lord Cecil unto the Archbishop, with Arch bishop's reply. Numb. 4. 5, 6. The which is more generally suggested in Cambden, who mentions the dissatisfaction of several noble men, with the Bishops proceed, but more expressly by a moderate writer in Queen Elizabeth's, who (in his plea of the innocent) doth in the name of the Non-Conformists speak thus of the Lords of the Council— And this is not all, that binds us to their honours: for in our private troubles about the Ceremonies and Subscription, we the poor and faithful Ministers of Christ, whensoever we have opened our cause, and humbled ourselves unto them, we have found great justice and equity, and divers times great relief and ease from our troubles; No doubt they seeing our innocency, that of mere Conscience without any the least inclination to disloyalty to our Sovereign, we did forbear to do those things, they have tendered our cause, and lovingly effected, that we might not be too much over-burdened. Moreover concerning the Bishops they say; What could we do less, or better, than to repair to the Reverend Bishops for Counsel and Comfort, which for the space of ten years, (or the most part thereof,) they did in some good measure afford unto us, till as I take it by the relation of some in the same broils, the Papists had cunningly wrested our good Fathers from us, that they could, and would do no further for us. Then yet complaining of our case, and opening our doubts unto them, we did as the Law affordeth, that the cause should be brought before the Ordinary, in all doubts about ceremonies of the Church Established by Law: and finding not ourselves resolved by our ordinaries, alas what could we do less, than quietly to suffer ourselves (with great grief bewailing our flocks) to be suspended, imprisoned and deprived. And this hath been the cause of all them, which have not used the Ceremonies so fully as some other of their Brethren.  
By this 'tis evident, that as Queen Elizabeth's Education, natural temper, Interest of State, and I verily believe, Conscience of Duty unto God inclined her to such an establishment in the Ecclesiastical Constitution, as might be most grateful unto the Papist, even so some of the Clergy (who by Heylin are called Melancthonians of whom Whitgift and Bancroft were principal in their times,) did their utmost by insisting so very much on the Ceremonies, Subscription, etc. to the same end the Queen's Majesty did, whereby to the great grief of many Sound Protestants, the Service of our Church was made to resemble as much as possible, that of the Church of Rome. But,  
3. I'll now consider the reasonings of some Protestant Dissenters from this similitude, likeness and agreement there is between these two service books against the ordinary use of the English Liturgy.  
Whoever will make a due enquiry into the History of the Reformation, will find that in Edward the 6th, his days, Hooper Lord Bishop elect for Gloucester, scrupled the Episcopal Vestments, because they had been invented chiefly for celebrating the Mass with much pomp, and had been consecrated for that effect. In Queen Mary's time the exiled Protestants at Frankford, such as Knox, and those of his persuasion, refused to Minister the Communion by the book of England, for that there were some things in it placed only by warrant of man's Authority, or no ground of God's word for the same, and had also a long time very Superstitiously in the Mass been wickedly abused. See discourse of the troubles at Frankford. Moreover in Queen Elizabeth's, and King James' days, several manifested their dislike of our Liturgy for this very reason, because 'twas so like unto the Romish Service. I'll give some particular instances with those reasons that were by 'em urged against a compliance with a Service Book, so like that of the Papists.  
In a part of the Register you have the sense of Mr. Edward Deering, who says that; The similitude that this book has, with the form of Prayer which the Papists used; I think declineth from the equity of these Laws, Deut. 7. 25. Deut. 12. 30. Deut. 18. 9 which things our fathers so much regarded in the Primitive Church, that their books are full of great complaints, against all similitude to be had with the Gentiles. Yea the second Council of Bracca made a decree, that no Christian should have either Bay-Leaves, or Green Boughs in their houses, because the Gentiles so accustomed; And at this day all Reformed Churches in France, Polonia, Helvetia, Scotland, and other places have changed that form of Prayer, which prudence of all ages, if we shall condemn, the rebuke of the Apostle, I think will touch us. 1 Cor. 14. 36. Came the word of God out from you, or came it else to you only? Secondarily, we have the Psalms, Venite, Benedictus, Magnificat, nunc dimittis, usual in our Ministry, of which we can give no good reason. Nor I see no cause why we should more leave out the Ave Maria. And because of parting the Scriptures again into the Epistles and Gospels (which was not heard of before the days of Popery,) I dare not avow that this is that reverend handling of the Scripture, and the right dividing of the word of truth, which St. Paul requireth 2 Tim. 2. 15.  
But the Abridgement is much more full on this Subject, showing what are the many Scriptural Arguments against all compliances with the Superstitions, the which is farther confirmed, not only from the Fathers, the Transmarine Protetestant Divines, but also by our own Old Protestant Doctors of the Church of England. Take it as in the Abridgement, where 'tis asserted, that 'tis contrary to the word of God, to use such ceremonies in the worship of God, as man has devised, if they be notoriously known to have been of old, and still to be abused unto Idolatry or Superstition, by the Papists, especially if the same be now of no necessary use in the Church; Where note, that the Ceremonial part of the English Service that is like unto that of the Romish, is what has been abused by the Papists to Idolatry or Superstition, but yet are not so necessary to Divine Worship, but that the worship may be complete, decent and orderly without 'em but to their reasons, this may appear say they.  
1. By the Second Commandment which forbids all provocation unto spiritual fornication, as the 7th. doth unto that which is Carnal.  
2. By the Commandment and direction God hath given us in his word to separate ourselves from Idolaters, and be as unlike to them as may be, especially in their Religious Observations and Ceremonies, to abolish not only all Idols, but also all the Ceremonies and Instruments of Idolatry, and that so as we may best show our utmost detestation to them, and root out the very memory of them, to cast away even such things as had a good Original, and use (if they be not still necessary, or commanded of God) when once they are known to have been defiled by Idolatry, or abused unto it.  
3. By the equity and reasons of these Commandments which we find set down in Holy Scripture, viz. 1. The detestation which the Lord our God (being a jealous God) beareth unto Idolatry, and all the Instruments and Tokens thereof, as unto Spiritual Whoredom. 2. That we cannot be said sincerely to have repent of the Idolatry or Superstition, whereby we or our Forefathers have provoked the Lord, unless we be ashamed of, and cast away with detestation all the Instruments and Monuments of it. 3. That we shall be in danger to be corrupted in the Substance of Religion, and purity of Doctrine, and even to fall back again unto idolatry, if we conform ourselves to Idolaters in their Ceremonies, and retain the Monuments of their Superstition, yea if we show not all detestation unto them. 4. That our holding of Conformity with Idolaters in their Ceremonies (wherein they repose the greatest part of their Religion,) will be a special mean to harden them in their Superstition. 5. That seeing the Pope is reveiled to be that great Antichrist, and his Idolatry troubleth the Church, at this day more than any other, and our people converse more with Papists than with any other Idolaters, there is more danger in the retaining of the Ceremonies and Relics of Popery, than of any other Idolatry whatsoever.  
4. By the judgement of the Godly Learned of all Churches and Ages, who have constantly taught and given Testimony to this Truth, that Christians are bound to cast off the Ceremonies and Religious Customs of Pagans, Jews, Idolaters and Heretics, and carefully to shun all Conformity with them therein.  
In the Council of Nice it was decreed, that Christians might not keep the Feast of Easter at that time, nor in that manner as the Jews did: Let us (say they) in nothing agree with that most detestable rout of the Jews.  
And in another Council, that none should fast on the Lord's day, because the Manichees had taken up that day to fast on, which also Augustine allegeth and approveth of in another That such Altars as were set up in the Country, and Highways, in memory of the Martyrs, should be abolished, although they were pretended to be set by Revelations or Visions, and that solemn request should be made to the Emperor, that all Relics and Monuments of Idolatry might be utterly destroyed. And this decree we find cited by Dr. Fulk.  
In another Council it was decreed, that none of the Clergy should forbear or make scruple to eat Flesh, that they might show themselves to differ from the Priscillianists. In another, that Christians should not deck their houses with Bay leaves, and Green Boughs, because the Pagans did use so to do. That they should not rest from their labours those days that the Pagans did, and that they should not keep the first day of every Month as they did. In another, that Christians should not celebrate Feasts on the Birth days of Martyrs, because that was the manner of the Heathen. Tertullian is large and vehement in this point, as (saith he) we may give nothing to the service of an Idol; So may we borrow nothing from the service of an Idol; If it be against Religion to sit at Table in an Idols Temple, what is it to be seen in the habit of an Idol. Again, no habit or apparel is esteemed Lawful amongst us, that hath been dedicated or appointed to so unlawful an Act. Thou that art a Christian must hate those things, the Authors and Inventors whereof, thou canst not choose but hate. In another place he affirmeth, that Christians might not wash their hands, nor lay aside their Cloaks before Prayer, nor sit upon their Beds after Prayer, because the Heathen used so to do. Melchiades Bishop of Rome decreed, that no Christians should fast on the Lord's day, or on the Friday, because it was a known custom of the Pagans to fast on those days. Ambrose taught Monica, the Mother of Augustine, as Augustine himself reporteth it, which is also alleged by Bishop Jewel, to leave bringing of Wine and Cakes to the Church, as she was wont to do, because she might not Lawfully give such a show of Conformity with the Gentiles. Augustine himself also prescribing a direction how to win the Pagans, hath these words, if you ask how the Pagans may be won, how they may be enlightened, how they may be called to Salvation? leave all their Solemnities, forsake their Toys. Gregory (as we find him cited by Bishop Jewel) allegeth and approveth of a decree of the Council of Toledo, which forbade the Ceremony of thrice dipping in Baptism, because it was the custom of certain Heretics. Leo adviseth all Christians to shun the viperous conference of Heretics, and that in nothing they would be like unto them, who in name only are Christians. The judgement of the Church of Scotland, appeareth in a Letter, written from a general Assembly held at Edinburgh 1566. unto the Bishops of England. In which (besides many other sentences to this purpose,) thus they writ; If Surplice, Corner Cap. and Tippet, have been badges of Idolaters in the very Act of Idolatry, what have the Preachers of Christian Liberty, and the open Rebukers of Superstition to do with the dregs of the Romish Beast. And more plainly in the confession of their Faith, whereunto his right excellent Majesty, with others of the chief states of that Kingdom, did solemnly swear and subscribe, where we find these words. [We detest all the Ceremonies and false Doctrine of the Roman Antichrist, added to the ministration of the true Sacraments; We detest all his vain Allegories, Rites, Signs and Traditions brought into the Church without the Word of God.] — Thus have such as have been chief Pillars in our own Church, judged of the Monuments of Idolatry, a●d all Conformity with Papists in their Ceremonies. Mr. Rogers (that Holy Martyr) would not consent to a Canon that was to be made in King Edward's days for the Clergies Uniformity, in Cap, Tippet, and the rest of the Apparel, unless it might be decreed that the Papists for a difference between them and others, might be constrained to wear upon their sleeves a Chalice with an Host upon it.  
Our late Queen's injunctions require, that all Monuments of Idolatry and Superstition be so utterly extinguished and destroyed, that there may remain no memory of them either in our Churches or Houses. And the Book of Canons made Anno Dom. 1571. That no man wear the grey Amice, or any other garment defiled with the like Superstition.  
Bishop Jewel in one place approveth the judgement of Tertullian, and the Fathers of that Age: who forbade Christians to wear Garlands of Bay, not for that (saith he) the thing was ill of itself, but for that they would not seem to follow Idolaters. It had some appearance of evil. And in another place, speaking of sundry of the Popish Ceremonies, you have (saith he, speaking to the Papists,) so misused these things, or rather so defiled and bewrayed them with your Superstitions, that we can no longer continue them without breach of Conscience.  
Bishop Pilkinton misliked, that in our Liturgy we are so like the Papists; In Marriage (saith he) and many other things besides, we are but too like unto them; That is our fault generally, that we differ not more from them, in all our Ministry.  
Bishop Westphaling (in his Treatise of Reformation) allegeth to this purpose, and alloweth this sentence of Augustine, whosoever (be he Jew or Gentile,) that shall observe the Ceremonies of the Jews, not only he that doth it unfeignedly, but even he that doth it to any other intent, tumbleth himself into the Bottomless pit of the Devil.  
Bishop Bilson (defending the Reformed Churches against a slander of the Papists,) reporteth thus of them, as approving and allowing them in it; The Reformed Churches (saith he) are so far from admitting the full dose of your Heresies, that by no means they can digest one dram of your Ceremonies.  
Dr. Humphrey speaking of Constantine's zeal in forbidding all Conformity with the Jews, affirmeth; That all men ought to imitate him therein, and refuse to conform themselves to the enemies of God in any of their Ceremonies. And in another place he professeth plainly both his desire and hope of the utter abolishing of the Ceremonies, and of all the Monuments of Popish Superstition that yet remain in our Church.  
Dr. Fulk in one place saith; If any man mislike our form of Service, as not differing sufficiently from yours, he showeth his greater zeal in detestation of your Idolatry and Blasphemy. And in another; We abhor (saith he) whatsoever hath but a show of Popery. In another place he gives this for a reason, why our Ministers use to stand at the North-side of the Table at the Communion, that we might show ourselves thereby unlike to the Papists,  
Dr. Andrews now Dean of Westminster hath this Speech in his Catechism, if it be true that is in Judas 23. that we must hate the very Garment that the flesh had spotted, surely, because the Idol is as unclean and abominable, no less abominable must that Garment be, that it hath spotted.  
Dr. Sutcliffe maketh this one of his principal Arguments against the Papists; that they have derived most of their Ceremonies and Customs from the Jews and Pagans. See also a most plain and pregnant Testimony of Mr. Greenham for this our first Argument in the last Edition of his Works. But above all others that ever were read, Marbury is most peremptory and bitter in this point. And as all these Divines agree with us in this our first Argument against the Ceremonies, so do they and others also, in the reasons we have brought out of the Scriptures to confirm it by. For they hold.  
1. That those Laws, that we have alleged out of the Old Testament against the Monuments of Idolatry, do bind us as much as they did the Jews, and from them they conclude as we have done, that all Relics of Popish and Heathenish Superstition, are to be banished out of the Church of of Christ; Of this judgement are Calvin, Martyr, Grineus, Wolphius, Vrsinus, Macabeus, Zanchius, Simterus, Zepperus, our own Book of Homilies; Dr. Fulk and others.  
2. That Ezekiah, Josiah, and the rest of the Godly Kings of Judah, which shown most zeal in abolishing those things which had been abused to Idolatry, did no more than they were bound by the Law of God to do, and that from their example the Argument holds strong against the Monuments of Idolatry now, because all Christians are bound to imitate their zeal therein. Of this judgement was Augustine, Calvin, Martyr, Wolphius, Lavater, Zanchius, Zadeel, Bishop Jewel, Bishop Bilson, Dr. Fulk, Dr. Rainold, Dr. Andrew's, Mr. Perkins, and others.  
3. That the retaining of the Popish Ceremonies will certainly be a means to endanger the doctrine that we profess, and to bring the people back again to Popery. This was the judgement of the divines of Saxony, and of them of Hamburgh, of Luther, Oecolampadius, Calvin, Bucer, Martyr, Wolphius, Chemnitius, Pezelius, Zanchius, Dr. Andrews, Mr. Greenham, and others.  
4. That the retaining of the Ceremonies of Idolaters will cause them to insult over our Religion, as if it could not stand without help from them, and so harden them in their liking of their own Idolatry. This reason hath been used against Conformity with the Jews, by Constantine the Emperor, and by all the fathers in the first Council of Nice, and against Conformity with the Papists, by Brentius, Musculus, Bishop Jewel and others.  
Fourthly, we are confirmed in this our persuasion that it is unlawful to retain the ceremonies of the Papists, by experience of the great hurt they have done, and do daily in the Church. For we find.  
That some of the learnedst of our English Papists (namely Martial, Bristol, and he that penned that Petition for the Papists, which Dr. Sutcliffe and Mr. Powel have answered,) have by this Argument justified their Church and Religion, that we have borrowed our ceremonies from them, yea some of them (as Harding, Martial, and he that wrote the Apologetical Epistle for our English Papists,) have professed, that this was to them an evident Argument, that Queen Elizabeth did in her conscience like well of their Religion, because she liked and maintained their ceremonies, and the superstitious multitude, do usually defend the blessing of themselves with crossing their Breasts and Foreheads, by our Crossing our children in Baptism. So far the Abridgement.  
To which I'll not make many an addition, because I think that the reasonings of those Reverend Divines, those great Doctors and Bishops of the Church of England are so weighty and important, that an impartial Reader cannot but conclude: that though the influence this Argument may have on some be inconsiderable, yet it may be strong and very cogent in the judgement of others, in order to the obliging 'em to refuse to join with the Church in the use of the English Service: especially at such a time as this, wherein we are under the fearful apprehensions of Popery.  
If ever a Popish Successor should enter the English Throne, we may easily suppose, he'll do his utmost for the re-introduction of his own Religion amongst us, the which now cannot be done with more ease and speed, than the first establishing the Protestant Religion in this Kingdom has been. For, as the generality of the people were for Popery then, they are now as much against it, and therefore as the first Reformers suited the progress of the Reformation to the temper of the vulgar, so must the Papist now, and as King Edward argued for the English Liturgy, from its agreableness with the Romish; So now the Papists will argue on behalf of the Romish Service, from its agreableness with our English, and say, if 'twere good under an Heretical Under, why shall it be less so under a Catholic King, then (they may say) you have with the approbation of his Holiness the Pope, what formerly you had by the good liking of the Heretic only.  
'Tis not improbable that at first the Pope will be content, we shall use the same Liturgy we now have, with very little alterations, and to gain England under his Tyranny, will consent to what Pope Pius would have done in Queen Elizabeth's days, and a late Pope in Laud's time: and then by little and little add unto the Liturgy, sometime a few Prayers, and again for the greater Solemnity, Decency and Order in the Administration of Baptism, may add to the sign of the Cross, that of Salt and Spittle, and Lights, etc.  
Seeing then this may be so, there are many among the Dissenters, who are afraid to comply with the use of the English Liturgy, lest by their practice they give an unanswerable advantage to their implacable enemy the Papist. They are ware of the design, they are sensible how the Romanists have been practising on the Church of England, and what use they'll make of their not driving on the Reformation much farther, and therefore now, in this day do think, they shall highly provoke the Lord to jealousy, should they give countenance to the Service Book, which may be so easily improved to the advancing the superstition of the Roman Catholic.  
But if after all it be said by any, that these things are Light-points, and not so much to be insisted on, no other answer shall be given, but that of the Reverend Mr. Dering in his reply to an objection of a like nature, as 'tis in a part of the Register. If I seem curious, or stand upon light points, (beside that in the worship of God there is nothing light,) so the Conscience of man is exceeding tender, that it will neither be troubled nor touched in the least tittle, contrary to the persuasion of truth The weight of sin is not in substance of matter, but in the Majesty of God, that is offended, and be the thing never so little, yet the breach of his Commandment deserveth death. This faith we have learned of him, that is the wisdom of the father, and our only Prophet, that is, whoever shall break one of these least Commandments, these words which are shall break one of the least, have every one a greater weight than may be contemned of any man.   

Argument IU.  
There is in this Service Book a strange disorder and confusion unworthy the grandeur and Majesty of that God, unto whom we make our approach in Prayer. God is a great King, his Name is dreadful even among the Heathen, he is great and greatly to be feared and reverenced even in the Assembly of his Saints. God is in Heaven, we on the Earth, and therefore as our words must be few, even so must they be uttered in the gravest, and most serious manner. God is a jealous God, and 'tis dangerous to trifle with him, when we come to worship him; Yea God is a God of Order, and not of Confusion, and therefore our Addresses should be in the most Solemn Order.  
This all will grant, but the question is, whether there be any such disorder in the Common Prayer Book; For this has been formerly objected against the extempore and free Prayer of Dissenters, who are said to enter rashly into God's presence, and pray after the most disorderly manner conceivable, how then comes this to be urged (may some say) against that set form of Prayer, which has been with the greatest deliberation of the Fathers of the Church Composed. I reply,  
That the Reader may the more distinctly Comprehend what I have to offer on this Fourth head of Argument, I must beseech him to consider. 1. That I am not defending such as will inconsiderately Rush into the presence of Almighty God, and profane instead of honouring the name of God in Prayer. I durst not plead for such an Irreverent or uncomely practice. Neither 2. Do I design to offer any thing against those, who will seriously meditate on what they have to do, when they make their approaches unto the Throne of Grace. Premeditation on the matter to be prayed for, on the Method of the Address, yea, and on the choice of Expressions, is so far from a Sin in my Judgement, that I verily believe it to be a duty. Neither, 3. Do I Object against the prudent and necessary Use of some set form of Prayer in public, for many may be endowed with the Grace of God's Spirit, who abound not with its Gifts, and 'tis not enough that a man has the Grace of God's Spirit to enable him to be the Mouth of Others to God in Prayer, 'tis the Gift, that in this Case is requisite, the which some may not have who yet must pray in public, or public Worship must be totally omitted, in which Case the using a Form of Prayer is not only lawful, but highly expedient.  
These things premised, the Reader may easily perceive who it is, for whom I do not Apologise, as well as that I am not arguing against the Divine Service Book, as it Contains a Form of Prayers, nor as it a form imposed, which yet I approve not of, but as 'tis such a form so disorderly, and Confused a Form.  
This is insisted on in the Altar of Damascus, and in the Lincoln Abridgement. In the Altar it is thus expressed.  
Then again their Prayers are shred into so many small pieces, They pray in Two or Three Lines, and then after having read, some other things come, and pray as much more, and so to the Twentieth or Thirtieth time, with pauses between. Prayers should be continued together, not cut off, and interrupted, or cut in small pieces. They do with their Prayers, as they do with their Gospels and Epistles which they rend from their Contexts, which would serve for memory and greater Edification. So sar he. To whom I add, That if a Dissenting Minister in Pulpit before his Sermon, when he addresses himself to God in Prayer, should utter Three or Four Sentences in Prayer, and then go off to another thing, to the reading Two or Three Verses in the Bible, and then to his Prayer, and then to Reading, would not the generality of the Church say, this Dissenting Minister, by Confounding Reading and Prayer, offers up his Requests after a most disorderly manner. But to the Abridgement.  
In the Abridgement 'tis urged, That by this Book sundry things, that bring great Disorder and Confusion unto the Worship of God are appointed As that the People should say after the Minister whole Sentences of Prayer and Scripture, yea the Minister one part of the Prayer, and the people another, and in sundry parts of the Litany, the people make the Prayer, and the Minister only directs them what to pray for.  
The Minister at some time must pray, and the People give the reason of the Prayer; for Instance. The Minister Prays saying, Give peace in our days O Lord, and the people make their Answer, Because there is no other that fighteth for us, but only thou O God, as if Almighty God alone had not been able to defend them in the time of War, whence they Pray unto God for the sending Peace. But cannot that God, who sendeth Peace by putting an end unto Wars, preserve and protect in the day of Trouble. If he can, to what purpose is this Argument urged. Again an alteration is made in the State of this Affair. The Minister gives instruction, or rather as a beginner of the Prayer, mentions the Matter or Thing to be prayed for, and the people must proceed to the making it a formal Prayer, whence 'tis, that whereas the Minister in the public Assembly should be the Mouth of the people unto God, The Minister being silent, the people altogether with a loud voice, a distracting Murmur are their own Mouth. Thus, From Fornication, and all other deadly Sin, (as if some sins were not Mortal, but Venial) and from all the Deceits of the World, the Flesh, and the Devil, so far the Minister proceeds, and then make a stop, from whom the people take it adding Good Lord deliver us. Again, O Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the World, says the Minister with the greatest seeming fervour and affection, but yet in the midst of the sentence, his warm affection is ended, and the people proceed to say, Grant us thy peace O Lord. Again they must be as they were in Statu Quo, and the Minister prays, O Lord let thy Mercy be showed on us, to which Petition the people either add, their sense, or Limitation, or Reason of the Prayer, as we put our Trust in thee.  
Beside at some one meeting of the Assembly, the Paternoster, or Lords Prayer is to be repeated Six or Eight several times, and the Gloria Patri Twelve, beside the many Kyrie Eleesons and Christ Eleesons, Lord have mercy on us, Christ have mercy upon us, the Responces, the Versicles, etc. Alas how ridiculous would this be interpreted by the generality of those who are now Sons of the Church, should the Dissenters have used such a practice!  
This Argument receives strength from what I find insisted on by by some of His Majesty's Commissioners in the Account of all the proceed of the Commissioners of both persuasions, where 'tis thus Argued, Vid. As we find that the Minister is the Mouth of the people to God in public (which Scripture, and the necessity of Order do require,) So we are loath to Countenance the people's Invading of that Sacred Office, so far as they seem to us to do, By reading half the Psalms and Hymns. 2. By saying half the Prayers as the Minister doth the other half,— 4. By being the only Petitioners in the far greatest part of all the Litany by their [Good Lord deliver us] and [We beseech thee to hear us good lord] While the Minister only reciteth the Matter of the Prayer, and maketh none of the request at all; we fear least by purity of reason, the people will claim the work of preaching and other parts of the Ministerial Office. 3. And we mentioned, that which all our Ears are witnesses of, that until half the Psalms and Hymns, etc. are said by such of the people as can say them, the Murmur of their Voices in most Congregations is so unintellgible and Confused, as must hinder the Edification of all the rest; for, who is edified by that which he cannot understand. This you'll find page 29, but in page 60, we have account of the Rule, and Order of Prayer, with a full Demonstration, That the Common Prayer is not agreeable unto any just Rule, or Order.  
There are (say they) Two Rules of Prayer; One is the Nature of the things Compared (in Matter and Order) with Nature and Necessity; The Other is the Revealed Will of God in his word, in General the Holy Scripture, more Especially the Lords Prayer: The Liturgy (for the greatest part of the Prayers for daily Use) is Confused by whichsoever you measure it. You seem much to honour the Lords Prayer by your frequent Use of it (or part of it) we beseech you dishonour it not practically, by denying it by Matter and Order, to be the only Ordinary and Perfect Rule; We know about particular Administrations, where it is but certain select Requests, that we are to put up, suited to the particular Subject and Occasion, we cannot follow the whole Method of the Lords Prayer, which containeth the heads of all the parts, where we are not to take in all the parts; we cannot take them in that Order. But that none of all your Prayers should be formed to that perfect Rule; that your Litany, which is your Comprehensive Prayer, and that the Body of your daily Prayers, (broken into several Collects) should not (as set together) have any considerable respect unto that Order, nor yet to the Order, which reason and the Nature of the thing requireth (which is observed in all things else) and yet that you should so Admire this, and be so tenacious of that which is conceived Prayer, you would call by worse names than Confusion, this showeth us the power of prejudice.  
By this the Reader may perceive how much the Non-Conformists are for a decent Order, and Comely Method in Prayers, but the Conformist against it, and how much the Nonconformist are for the right use of the Lords Prayer, even when the Conformist are not at least practically for it. Whence we may see how unreasonable it is to make such a Noise and Clamour, as if the Dissenters rejected the Lord's Prayer, or were against its use, whereas in truth the Dissenters are much more for the Right use of the Lords Prayer, than the Conformists are.  
Whoever will understand the true State of this Controversy, must consider what the great design of the Disciples in Ask, and of Christ in granting their Request about Prayer was, the which he can no sooner with just deliberation, and impartially do, but will be satisfied, that the thing the Disciples desired was to be Taught how to Fray, Lord Teach us as John taught his Disciples How to Pray, and they desire to be taught, not that they prescribe unto Jesus Christ a Method in which he should teach 'em, for that became not Disciples, even Scholars, who are to Learn, but not to teach. This being the desire of the Disciples to be taught to pray, not to have a form of Words to be Verbally and Syllabically rehearsed, or repeated, but Rules or Precedents for the directing 'em, how to pray. The answering of their Request was the Design of Christ in giving 'em the Lord's Prayer, which was principally intended for the Direction of the Disciples, who were as Matthew expresseth it, Obliged by that Command when ye Pray, say, Our Father, so say after that manner, when you pray, or whenever you pray. The Command is perpetual, Obliging at all times of prayer so far, as the particular Occasions of Prayer will admit, every Prayer we make must be according to this Command of Christ.  
But will any say, That the meaning is, when ever you pray, repeat the very words, and Syllables of the Lords Prayer; Let not one Prayer be made without the Repetition of this Prayer. If so, then, whereas now the Lords Prayer is repeated in the Church six or eight times some Mornings, it should be so Twenty or Thirty, even at the end of every Collect, or other short Prayer. This none will assert, which is enough to show, that none do understand the words of Luke, [when you pray say] to be in this sense, namely, when ever you pray, repeat these words and Syllables, for none do it, none of the Church of England, nor among the Papists. The true sense then of those words in Luke is more fully given us in Matthew, when you pray say after this manner, that is, The Lords Prayer is given as a Form, a Rule, a Directory of our Prayers, A Rule to be prayed by, which Rule is transgressed by such, who when they pray, will cut their Prayers into many shreds and pieces. The Lord Christ's Prayer was but One continued Prayer, all its parts most admirably connected, he did not say, Our Father, and teach his Disciples to add, Which art in Heaven.  
This is enough to evince that the Common Prayer Book is not according to the Rule of Christ, and that although according to the Rubric a part of the Lords Prayer is so frequently rehearsed in one Morning, as if the rehearsing several Pater nosters was ex opere Operato sufficient to procure the pardon of Sin; yet the Dissenters, who do pray unto him, unto whom they are directed by the Lord's Prayer, for such things, as are more generally contained in it, keeping as near as they can to the same Method, do not only keep more close to the command of Christ in Luke, but moreover set an higher value on the Lord's Prayer than these Conformists, who, by keeping to the Rubric, at most do make it but the end of some of their Prayers.  
But to return from this necessary Digression, to what is farther insisted on by the aforesaid. Commissioners, p. 62. 'Tis said, But if we may (according to the Common Prayer Book) begin and end, and seem to withdraw again, and make a Prayer of every Petition or two, and begin every such Petition with God's name, and Christ's merits, as making up half the Form, or near; Nothing is an affected empty tossing of God's name in Prayer, if this be not, we are persuaded, if you should hear a man in a known ex tempore Prayer do thus, it would seem strange and harsh even to yourselves.  
This being so, there are some among the Dissenters, who considering how jealous God is in matters of his worship, how pure, and how holy, are afraid to draw near to God in this disorderly and confused manner, when they have the opportunity of addressing themselves to the Throne of Grace, in a way more agreeable to his Holy and most Blessed Will; When they have a Male in their Flock, they are afraid to offer a corrupt thing, lest they thereby expose themselves to that curse in Mal. 1. 14. If they should make their approaches in this disorderly manner unto God, will he not say, offer it now unto thy Governors, will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person?   

Argument V.  
In the Abridgement, an Argument against the Ceremonies, to which those who join with the Church of England must show their approbation is fetched from the mystical significancy of 'em thus; All humane Ceremonies (say they) being appropriated to God's Service, if they be ordained to teach any Spiritual Duty by their mystical signification, are unlawful.  
That this Argument may appear in its fuller strength, 'twill be requisite to consider the nature of Religious Worship, as well as a Religious Ceremony, and to make some enquiry after the power, man has given him to appropriate Humane Ceremonies to God's worship.  
1. whoever will consult the Learned of most persuasions, will find 'em to agree in the general about the nature of external worship, and a Ceremony of Religion. Dr. Covel, a great asserter of the English Ceremonies in his modest and reasonable examination etc. Chap. 6. has very handsomely given the sense of the Church of England, in Bellarmine's words▪ as near as an English Translation can well be to a Latin Original. Whoever will but compare Bellarmine's 29th. Chapter de effectu Sacramentorum, with what Dr. Covel has in his 6 chap. will find the agreement to be almost verbatim; Ceremonia (says Bellarmine) est actus externus Religionis, qui non aliunde habet laudem, nisi quia fit ad Dei honorem; that is, as Covel, without making any mention of his Master Bellarmine, Translates it, ceremonies are all such things as are the external Act of Religion, which have their commendation and allowance from no other cause, but only that in God's worship, they are virtuous furtherances of his honour. Thus Covel, who borroweth his explications, as well as arguments from Bellarmine, in order to the making the stronger defence of English Ceremonies, is so bold as to take the whole substance thereof from him, without any considerable variation, whereby we may find that the Church of England agrees so far with the Church of Rome in this matter, as to make a Ceremony of Religion to be. 1. An external Act expressive of inward worship. Actus externus interno respondens, qui est quaelibet externa actio, quae non aliunde est bona, nisi quia fit ad Deum colendum; That is, as Covel Translates it, the External Act answering the internal, which is no otherwise good or commendable than that it virtuously serveth to the inward worship of God, 'tis an outward sign representing the inward frame of the Spirit, as 'tis after God. 2. 'Tis also a virtuous furtherance of inward Religion, which is to the honour of God; It is apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some notable and special signification, whereby he might be edified. Ceremonies of Religion are means whereby the dull mind is stirred up to the remembrance of duty, and whereby the Soul is edified (i. e.) strengthened and confirmed in grace; Then is a man edified when his graces are suscitated, stirred up, strengthened, increased or confirmed.  
This description of a Religious Ceremony is not only what Bellarmine and Covel out of him give us, but also the same, to which a late Author in his verdict upon the Dissenters Plea, gives his approbation. Page 57 That such mystical Ceremonies, or Symbolical representations are not sinful, (says he), I am fully convinced, because they are good for the use of edifying; For whatsoever is apt to inform me, and put me in mind of my duty, and to excite me to perform it; That is certainly for my edification, because to inform, to admonish, and excite is to edify, and that some mystical Ceremonies are of this nature, is too notorious to be denied. So far the Answer to Melius Inquirendum.  
The same is asserted in the Discourse that is prefixed unto the Common Prayer, concerning the Service of the Church, where 'tis expressed, That the Ceremonies are by some notable signification, designed to stir up the dull minds of Men to the Remembrance of their Duty. Their use is for the exciting to Duty as well as for instruction.  
This is that they say concerning the Nature of a Ceremony, whereby it seemeth to some very evident, That there is a great Difference between a Religious Ceremony, and a necessary Circumstance of Religion. The former is a part of External Worship, the latter but an Appendix. Some Circumstances, such as time, and place, etc. are necessary unto, though no parts of Worship, but an humane Ceremony, though not necessary unto, yet is made a part of Worship. We cannot worship God but in some time, and in some place, but can do so without any of these humane significant Ceremonies, which yet are made a part of external Worship, which is but the expressing and setting forth of the Internal by outward signs, by which as by certain outward bodily Shadows and Colours the Spiritual and Inward Worship of God is made visible, and sensible to others, as the Learned Bradshaw expresses it.  
Much more might be said by way of Explication, but this is enough to evince, that a Religious Ceremony is significant of those inward motions of the heart that are directed unto God, and consequently a part of External Worship; and more than a Circumstance. That the Ceremonies in Controversy are of the same Nature with some of those in use among the Papists, Jew, and Heathen; for which reason, who ever can justly appropriate the English Ceremonies to God's Worship, may, for the same reason appropriate those of the Papist, Jew, or Pagan, and, that there is too much of the Nature of a Sacrament assigned unto 'em, in that they are not only significant, but moreover adapted for the stirring up the dull mind unto an edifying Remembrance of duty.  
This said, of Religious Worship and Ceremonies. The next enquiry is concerning what power man has given him to appropriate humane Ceremonies unto God's Worship. By humane Ceremonies the Dissenters (If I mistake 'em not) understand such Ceremonies as are neither Natural, nor of Divine Institution, but of Man's Invention only, By appropriating 'em to God's Worship, they mean an Ordaining, or an using them after a solemn and Religious manner for Spiritual uses, and ends, not for Civil or Temporal, but as outward Notes and Testimonies of those things that make us Spiritual. The ordaining or Using 'em as significant of inward Grace, and for the suscitating and stirring up those graces thereby signified. The which is supposed to be done even when the Worship may be complete and exactly agreeable to the word of God without them.  
This appropriating humane Ceremonies to God's Worship is not only an Unaccountable adding unto God's Worship, but a making that a part of Christ's Religion, which God never made to be so, which is as unlawful in Protestants, as 'tis in the Papist. The Papists may as lawfully appropriate to Religion a Shave Crown, a Monk's habit, Spittle in Baptism, Holy Water, and all the Missal Rites (as Bradshaw has it) as a Protestant Magistrate can make a Surplice, a Cope, a Cross in Baptism, Imposition of hands in Confirmation, Ring in Marriage to be Ornaments of Religion and Holy Ceremonies, yea, as Bradshaw. Those that may bring in, without special Warrant from God, Piping [vid. of the Organ, etc.] into his Service, might as well bring in Dancing also; those that have Authority to join to the Sacrament of Baptism, the Sign of the Cross have Authority also (not doubt) to join to the Sacrament of the Supper, Flesh, Broth, Butter, or Cheese, and worse matters than those, if they will [seeing they are equally capable of significancy, and apt for the stirring up our dull minds to the Remembrance of many a necessary duty] Yea, those that have power to make peculiar forms of Religion and Worship, have power to make and invent a Religion of their own.  
There are two things, on which the Church men do seem to insist very much.  

1. If the Ceremonies imposed be in their own Nature indifferent. And  
2. Such as do teach good Doctrine, they may be lawfully imposed. To this the Old Non-Conformists answered.   
I. That all things that are in themselves matter indifferent, are not lawful to be done in Divine Service, tho' the Magistrate should Command them, the which they judge will be very clear to such as will but consider what things are indeed indifferent, or go under the Name and Title of indifferent things, that the Magistrate cannot lawfully command, nor the people lawfully observe 'em if Commanded. e. g. Eating and Drinking, the avoiding the Superfluities of Nature, Spinning and Carding, Killing of Oxen and Sheep, which of themselves have in them neither virtue, nor vice, and are therefore indifferent Actions; and yet I think (says Bradshaw) none except professed Atheists, but will hold it a foul Sin to do some of these Actions in any Assembly, much more in the solemn Worship of God, though the Magistrate should Command the same even upon pain of Death. But if it be further considered, That Carding and Dicing, Masking and Dancing, For men to put on women's Apparel, and Women men's, Drinking to Healths, Ribaldry, Stageplays are things indifferent to be done upon the Lord's own day, [at least it was esteemed so when the Book for Plays was to be read] may a Minister of the Gospel upon the Magistrates Command do any of these in Divine Worship?  
By this we may see, That there is not so much Innocency in the mere Indifferency of an Action, that it should on that Account be meet enough to be appropriated to God's Worship. Neither,  
2. Can the significancy of a Ceremony, or its aptness to edify and stir up grace, be reason enough to appropriate a Ceremony to God's Service, unless the playing a Game at Cards may be lawfully introduced into the solemn Worship of God. For says a late Author, a Son of the Church of England in his Answer to Melius Inquirendum, pag. 57 The other day as I remember, I saw a Pack of Cards, which according to this Account may very well be called a Pack of Sacraments, [that is as a Sacrament is Considered to be a Outward and visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace] for each Card had the Matter of a Sacrament, that is, an Outward, and Visible sign of some Inward, and Spiritual Grace in the Martyr [Sir Edmund. Godfrey] (whose barbarous Murder they were designed to represent;) and sure the ingenious Contrivers of those Cards intended some effect from them, to excite, to stir up, to increase Grace and Devotion by the sight of them, Viz. an utter abhorrence of Treason, and all Popish Principles, which lead to it, and must this poor pack of Cards be condemned to the Flames for the Ingenuity of the Author? So far our Author. Who should have said and may not this pack of Cards, so like unto other humane significant Ceremonies, or Sacramentals, be appropriated unto the solemn Worship of God, May not the Minister and People in the midst of solemn Worship apply themselves to those Cards, seeing they in their play turning 'em frequently over, may be excited to an utter abhorrence of Treason, and whether any sober Divine of the Church of England would so far approve of the appropriating this indifferent but significant Ceremony, namely this pack of Cards to their solemn Religious Worship, is not difficult to determine. To return to what Mr. Bradshaw adds, who speaking of the above mentioned Ceremonies, says, There is none of these but may have applied unto them, by the Wit of Man, a Mystical and Religious Sense, even the filthiest Actions, and things that are, may teach good Doctrine. The Holy Ghost resembleth the Soul polluted with Sin to a Menstruous Cloth, A man fallen again into Sin to a Sow wallowing in the Mire: Might therefore a filthy Sow, and such unclean Clothes be brought into the Church, to be visible Shadows, and representations of such things? Pray, what may not by this means be brought into God's Worship, and yet by this reason he defended to be a good Ceremony, if the Magistrates and Bishops should decree the same.— A Minister clothed with such Apparel as those that Act the Devil's part in a play may teach this, That by Nature we are Limbs of Satan and Firebrands of Hell: Bear-baiting may teach us how Christ was baited before the Tribunals of the Pharisees, or the Combat between the Flesh, and the Spirit. But shall these be therefore appropriated to God's Worship?  
Thus, no good Argument may be fetched either from the indifferency, or significancy of Ceremonies for their lawfulness in God's worship, though commanded by the Magistrate. For notwithstanding the utmost can be said from either of these Topics, there will not (as Dissenters think) be enough to balance what is offered against the lawfulness of the Ceremonies, or of a compliance with 'em in God's Worship; On the which I have the rather insisted, because the hot Sons of the Church, by adheering over zealously to significant Ceremonies which are considered, because of their being in their own nature indifferent, as very harmless, do but open the way to the letting in an overrunning flood of Popish Ceremonies, against which the Zealots for Ceremonies have nothing to offer, because the Ceremonies they impose, are in their own nature indifferent and very significant, instructive of good Doctrine, stirring up the people's dull minds to their duty, and enjoined by public Authority, but of this more in the reasons against the appropriating humane significant Ceremonies to the worship of God; The which I'll give the Reader out of the Abridgement, the Authors of which assert them to be unlawful, because;  
1. The Second Commandment forbids us to make to ourselves the likeness of any thing whatsoever, for Religious use. And so is this Commandment understood by Bucer, virel, Dr. Fulk, and others.  
2. Christ is the only Teacher of his Church, and appointer of all means, whereby we should be taught, and admonished of any Holy Duty, and whatsoever he hath thought good to teach his Church, and the means whereby he hath perfectly set down in the Holy Scriptures, so that to acknowledge any other means of teaching, and Admonishing us of our duty, than such as he hath appointed, is to receive another Teacher into the Church besides him, and to confess some imperfection in those Means he hath ordained to teach us by. Our Saviour by this Argument (amongst others) Condemns the Jewish purifyings and and Justifieth himself and his Disciples in refusing that Ceremony, because (being the precept of men) it was taught and used as a Doctrine by way of signification to teach what inward purity should be in them, and how they ought to be cleansed from the pollutions of the Heathen. And so we find this place interpreted by Chrysostom (whose Judgement also is alleged and approved by Dr. Whitaker) the Church of Wittemberge Calvin, virel, Zeipperus, Dr. Fulke, Dr. Reinolds and others. This Reason we find alleged by such Divines as have been of chief credit in the Church of Christ, namely. Mr. Calvin, Chemnitius, Lavater. Dr. Fulke, and others. So to them that say Images may stand in Churches as helps to stir up Devotion, and to put Men in remembrance of good things; It is answered (by Peter Martyr, Gualier, Lavater, Vrsinus, Polanus, and others) that the Lord himself hath appointed means enough to do that; and that no means may be used to that end, but such as he hath Ordained. So the Churches of France and Flanders in their Observations upon the harmony of Confessions gives this Reason against all Mystical Ceremonies, that they are parts of the Holy Doctrine, and Dr. Andrews allegeth this for the first Root of all Superstition and Idolatry, that men thought they would never have admonitions and helps enough to stir them up to Worship God, yet God (saith he) had given four means, viz. The Word written, the Word Preached, the Sacraments, and the great Book of the Creatures.  
3. This gives unto Ceremonies a chief part of the Nature of Sacraments, when they are appointed to teach or Admonish us by their Signification. This is affirmed and given as a reason against Significant Ceremonies, by Augustine, the Churches of France and Flanders, in their Observations upon the harmony of Confessions, Calvin, Martyr, Beza, Sadcel, Danaeus, Zepperus, Polanus, Bishop Jewel, Dr. Humphrey, and others.  
4. In the time of the Law, (when God saw it good to teach his Church by significant Ceremonies) none might be brought into, or received in the Worship of God, but such only as the Lord himself did institute. This reason is used against the Popish Ceremonies by ●alvin, Junius, Lubbertus, and others.  
5. It is much less lawful for man to bring significant Ceremonies into God's Worship now, than it was Under the Law. For God hath abrogated his own, not only those that were appointed to prefigure Christ, but such also as served by their signification to teach moral Duties, so as now (without great Sin) none of them can be continued in the Church, no not for signification. Of this Judgement were the Fathers in the Council of Nice and Austin, Martyr, Bullinger, Lavater, Hospinian, Piscator, Cooper, Bishop Westphaling, and others.  
And if those Ceremonies that God himself ordained to teach his Church by their signification may not now be used, much less may those which man hath devised. This Reason our Divines hold to be strong against Popish Ceremonies, namely Calvin, Bullinger, Hospinian, Arcularius, virel, Dr. Bilson, Dr. Rainolds, Dr. Willet, and others. Yea, this is one main Difference which God hath put between the State of that Church under the Law, and this under the Gospel, that he thought good to teach that by other mystical Ceremonies, besides the ordinary Sacraments, and not this. And of this Judgement is Calvin, Bullenger, Chemnitius, Danaeus, Hospinian, Arucularius, our book of Homilies, Dr. Humphrey, Dr. Rainolds, Dr. Willet, and others. All which Divines do teach that to bring insignificant Ceremonies into the Church of Christ is plain Judaisme. Besides this, 'tis a special part of that Christian Liberty which Christ hath purchased for us by his death, and that which all Christians are bound to stand for: that the Service we are to do unto God now, is not mystical, Ceremonial, and Carnal (as it was then) but plain and spiritual. And of this Judgement were the Divines within the Territories of Hamborough) in an Epistle they wrote to Mèlancthon) and Virel, Piscator, Dr. Rainolds, and others.  
6. This will open a Gap to Images, Oil, Lights, and Spittle, Cream, and all other Popish Ceremonies, especially if they shall be judged as fit to Teach and Admonish by their signification, as these which we retain. And indeed this is a chief Reason whereby both Papists and Lutherans justify the Use of Images; and whereby Bellarmine commendeth all other their Ceremonies, that they are fit to teach and put men in remembrance of good things. The Popish Custom of the Priests sprinkling men with Holy Water, and using with all these words, Remember thy Baptism, (as their manner was in some Countries can with no reason be held for Unlawful, if such significant Ceremonies as ours are to be defended. With such Respects and Relations, Remembrances and Apprehensions (saith Dr. Fulke) all Idolatry and false Worship may be defended.  
7. We are further confirmed in this our Argument by the Judgement of the Godly Learned, who, (besides the Testimony they have given to every several proof we have brought for it) do also speak directly with us in this General. That no Mystical and significant Ceremony devised by Man, and appropriated to God's Service may be retained in the Church of Christ. Of this judgement is the Church of Wittenberg, the Churches of France, and the Low Countries, in their Observations upon the Harmony of Confessions, Mr. Calvin, Mr. Beza, Mr. Perkins, and others. Yea, Dr. Whitgift himself professeth, that he did not like that any prescript Apparel should be used in God's Service for Signification. And no good reason can be given why the Church may not as well enjoin a prescript Apparel for signification, as any other Ceremony.  
To all which I'll add one Argumentative Consideration which the Church of England doth afford us, which is given in their Discourse of Ceremonies before the Common-Prayer-Book, as a reason why they did put away any of those many Ceremonies, with which the Church was burdened, which reason is distinct from that of their Multitudes, and 'tis taken from their significancy, and the likeness they had with those in use among the Jews, on which account they were not suited to the Gospel Dispensation. After mention is made of the great excess and Multitude of Ceremonies in the days of Popery, they add, And besides this, Christ's Gospel is not a Ceremonial Law (as much of Moses Law was) but it is a Religion to serve God not in Bondage of the Figure, [i. e. significant Ceremony] or Shadow, but in the Freedom of the Spirit. As if it had been said a great part of Gospel Liberty consists in being freed from those significant Ceremonies, which are not now of God's appointment, These words do seem to suggest that one reason of the abolishing the significant Ceremonies of the Papists was because they being significant, were so like unto the Jewish Service, and so different from the Gospel State, and such as have been so much abused to Superstition, that 'twas not easy to retain the Ceremony, and abandon the Superstition.  
This being the Sense of the Church of England, seeing the Ceremonies retained are of the same significant, or Jewish Nature, with those abolished, that have been as much abused to Superstition, as others, and have no other Foundation than Man's Wit and Will for their support, why were not these, that are left, rejected for the same reason, those still retained by the Papists have been. If you'll argue from the significancy, the likeness that is between Popish Ceremonies, and the Jewish; and therefore reject 'em, seeing the English are of the same kind, is not the Argument as strong against them. Is not a Surplice as like the Jewish Garment, as some of the Popish Rights are to the Jewish Ceremonies; why then shall the one be abolished, because of that likeness, and the other kept, or, if their being abused to superstition, and the Difficulty of separating the Superstitious abuse from the useing 'em be sufficient to abolish the Rites of Salt, and Spittle, Lights, etc. why not as sufficient for the abolishing the Surplice, the Sign of the Cross in Baptism. Kneeling at the Lords Supper, Bowing at the name of Jesus: Have not all these been as much abused to Superstition, and still are as any of the rest, especially considering what Divisions they have made in the Church, why not then abolished? Or if it be a sin to conform to the Popish Rites, How a Duty to Conform to these that of the same kind with 'em? Or, if these without Sin may be appropriated to God's Worship by Protestants, which may not the Papists, where they have Authority by their Impositions, impose 'em on the people as in France, etc. and appropriate 'em to God's Worship?  
Methinks Mr. Greenham expresseth himself very full on this particular in his Answer unto the Bishops of Ely, as 'tis in the Register. If your Wisdom think (says he) that I deceive myself in my Supposition, for that in Lutheranism more and worse abuses be maintained, I answer, (that Consubstantiation excepted) they be all ejusdem generis of the like kind. [This he speaks of the Ceremonies of the Lutherans, who keep up Images, comparing 'em with our Ceremonies] seeing they are not retained ad Cultum Dei, to the Worship of God, but as they say, Ad Aedificationem, Decorum, et Ordinem Ecclesiae to Edification, etc. and differ only from us secundum Majus, & Minus, as great things and less, Therefore as more and worse Ceremonies are less to be tolerated, so no more are the fewer, or lesser evils to be allowed, and as you and other good men have great Consciences in the Multitude of Ceremonies I beseech you to think, that I, and others may have some Consciences in the fewer sort, when they be of the like nature with others.  
Seeing what has been said doth sufficiently prove the unlawfulness of the Ceremonies in the judgement of many a Dissenter, they are afraid to Comply with (or join with any in) the use of those Ceremonies. They are fully convinced, they should sin if they did, the which they durst not do, lest they provoke God to jealousy.  
There are in the Write of the Old Non-Conformists such a multitude of weighty Arguments against the Lawfulness of the Ceremonies, etc. that a giving the Reader all would take up a very large Volume, but 'tis not my business to insist on all that may be offered, I'll therefore close with this one Argument.   

Argument VI.  
Notwithstanding the great Cry that has been made about the Antiquity of the English Service, and the reasonableness of conforming unto it, for that reason, some Dissenters refuse to join in the use of it, because such a practice is not agreeable to the best Antiquity.  
They think that the Apostles were best acquainted with the Mind and Wit of Jesus Christ, and that the Primitive Christians in the First, Second and Third Centuries kept more exactly to the Rule of Christ than those, who lived in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Seventh, etc. whence the Antiquity the Dissenter pleads for is that which is most Ancient, and most pure, unto which pattern such as will aim at a thorough Reformation, must attempt the reducing all things in matters of Religion.  
'Tis generally agreed by all Protestants, that in the Apostolical and most Primitive Days of the Gospel all things were most exactly conformed to the Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that the nearer any keep to his Rule, the better. A Deviating from the Primitive practice has been but the beginning of all those many corruptions that have infested the Church of Christ.  
Seeing this is a truth acknowledged by most, let us inquire after the Antiquity of such Liturgies as this in use among us, and after the time when Liturgies were first imposed, and from whom and when the present English Liturgy had its rise.  
1. From what has been already suggested, 'tis manifest That there were no stinted Liturgies imposed on any Pastors of particular Churches, the First Four Hundred years after Christ. The which may be be further confirmed out of what Dr. Burnet in the Second part of the History of the Reformation doth acknowledge, who, speaking of Liturgies, doth say, That they were not made the Subject of any public Consultation till St. Augustine's time; when in their Deal with Heretics, they found they took advantages from some of the Prayers, that were in some Churches. Upon this, he tells us, it was ordered, that there should be no Prayers used in the Church, but upon common Advice. After that the Liturgy came to be more carefully considered. Formerly the Worship of God was a pure, and simple thing, and so it continued till Superstition had so infected the Church, that those Forms were thought too naked, unless they were put under more Artificial Rules, and dressed up with much Ceremony, etc. So far Dr. Burnet.  
About this time, which was in the Fourth Century St. Ambrose composed his Service Book, which was the first that gained any considerable Reputation in the World. The Spurious Liturgies that are ascribed unto the Apostles are such, as have enough in 'em to convince the Reader, that they were not so ancient as is pretended. After this time the Pastors, or Bishops of Churches were very busy in composing Prayers, in making Additions to what was done by such as went before 'em. But no Liturgy as yet imposed on any Churches, Every Pastor, tho' he communicated the prayers he had composed for his own use unto others (The which he did only for the satisfaction of his Brethren that they might be assured, there was nothing of Error in 'em) yet none imposed. 'Tis very probable that St. Ambrose's Liturgy in Divers places finding Acceptance was much in use: But 'tis most certain, that until Pope Adrian the first, who lived in the Eighth Century there was no general Imposition of any Liturgy.  
In Petries Church History 'tis storied. That about the later end of the Eighth Century, there was a great contention for receiving the Mass of Pope Gregory into the Churches, first by Authority of Pope Adrian, and then of Charles the Great; some Churches had one Directory, and some another, who would not change, When the Pope saw so great Opposition (and it may be understood, that it was not small, when the Pope was put to such a shift) he said he would refer it to the Will of God, whither he would by any visible sign approve the Mass of Gregory, or Ambrose: so these two Books were laid together upon the Altar in St. Peter's Church, and he called upon God which of the Two he approved. The Doors were shut all Night, and the next Morning, when they were returned into the Church, the Book of Ambrose was found lying as it was laid down, and the other was all torn and dispersed through the Church. The Pope maketh the Comment (if we will belive Jacob de Voragine in Vita Gregorij) That the Mass of Ambrose should be untouched, and the Mass of Gregory should be used through the World, and so he did Authorise and Command that it should be used in all Churches, and Chapels. But many did expound that sign the contrary way, and would not receive it, till Charles did command all Bishops and Priests to use it through his Dominions, he caused the Mass of Ambrose to be burned and threw many Priests into Prison, who refused to accept the new Mass [or Pope Gregory's Liturgy] The Church of Milan would not change. Walifred Strabo (who lived about the year 900) testifieth in his Book de Exordijs rerum cap. 25. That in his time the Roman Mass was not universally in all Churches, but almost (saith he) in all the Churches of the Latins, and no Benedictine Monks did read it, etc. Thus Adrian the Pope, and Charles the Emperor were the first hot Zealots for Gregory's Liturgy, who were much more fond of it, than Gregory himself was, for Gregory did as much detest the Universal Imposition, as he did zealously reject the Title of an Universal Bishop, whence he was not fond of imposing it on us in England.  
'Tis very certain that the Christian Religion did many an hundred years flourish in this Kingdom before 'twas troubled with a Romish Liturgy, which came not hither till about the year 600, and then rejected by the British Christians, who severely suffered for their refusing to comply with the prelatic Impositions of that proud Monk Austin, who, stirring up the King of Kent to fight against the Christians, thereby to bring 'em, if possible, to a compliance with his Ceremonies, was the cause of the Destruction of above a Thousand Godly Monks, besides the many others who were cruelly slain at that time. The which Austin most wretchedly did, tho' he never received any such advice from Gregory.  
An account of Pope Gregory's Moderation we have in Dr: Burnet, who gives us also a short History of the Rise and Progress of Ceremonies thus. Gregory the Great was the first, that took much care to make the Church Music very regular, and he did also put the Liturgies in another Method, than had been formerly used. Yet he had no such fondness of his own Composures. But left it to Austin the Monk, whom he sent over into England, when he consulted him in it, either to use the Roman, or the French Rituals, or any other, as he should find they were most likely to edify the people. [But] After this there were great variations; for as any Prelate came to be Canonised, or held in high esteem by the people; some private Collects, or particular Forms, that he had used, were practised in his, or perhaps as his Fame, spread in the Neighbouring Diocese.  
Thus the Liturgy as its first rise was in Austine's time, or thereabout, which was occasioned by the Errors that then did infest the Churches, at which time the Ministers would vent their Errors in their very Prayers, even so by degrees it received remarkable Additions, some part brought in at one time, and some at another. So says Dr. Burnet. In every Age there were notable Additions made, and all Writers almost in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries employed their Fancies to find out Mystical Significations, for every Rite, that was then used; and so as a new Rite was added, it was no hard matter to add some Mystery to it. This had made the Office swell out of measure, and there was a great variety of them, Missals, Breviaries, Rituals, Pontificals, Portoises, Pies, Graduals, Antiphorals, Psalteries, Hours, and a great many more.  
Out of these was the English Service taken, which as it had no higher Rise than that of gregory's or at most Ambrose's Liturgy, in like manner it was a Composition of time, the Remaining parts having different Fathers, some hundred years younger than the Apostles.  
This I'll evince particularly out of Bellarmine, who (as his Interest prompted him) made diligent search after the Antiquity of the several parts of the Romish Service Book.  
1. The Versicle, Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost was as Alcuinus thought Composed by St. Hierome at the request of Pope Damasus, But as Walfrid Strabo, 'twas composed by the Nycene Council sometime before Hierome, it may be to show their Detestation to the Arrian Heresy, which was some hundred years after Christ.  
2. The Kyrie Eleison (i. e.) Lord have mercy on us, is foolishly supposed to be used ever since the Apostles days, because 'tis found in St. James' feigned Liturgy, but Bellarmine cannot say that 'twas used in the Roman Liturgy Two Hundred years before Gregory the Great who lived about the year 600.  
3. Dominus Vobiscum, or the Lord be with you, An ancient Salutation, used by Believers in the Old Testament times, about which Petrus Damianus wrote a Book with this Title, Dominus vobiscum. Tho' this was an ancient Salutation in use among old Believers, when they met one another, yet we have no evidence, that 'twas brought into the Liturgy as a part of solemn and set Worship until the first Council at Bracca, Can. 21. enjoined it the Bishops and Priests.  
4. The Collects, which were the short Prayers of several Popes and others Cannonized for Saints, were brought into the Liturgy by Pope Gregory almost 600 years after Christ.  
5. The Te Deum Laudamus, or that Hymn which gins thus. We praise thee O God, tho' it be not found in the Sacred Scriptures, yet 'twas (saith Bellarmine) given the Church by Inspiration at the Baptism of St. Austin, at which time St. Ambrose and St. Austin did extempore, and alternately to the Astonishment of the people sing this Hymn, as Dacius Episcopus Mediolanensis reports.  
6. After the Lessons, the Responses, which are so called, says Rabanus, because one who gins is answered by the rest, were first invented by the Italian Churches, was not within several hundred years after Christ.  
By these Intimations concerning the Antiquity of some parts of the English Service 'tis evident, That as all stinted Liturgies compared with the most primitive practices are new, so our Liturgy, which was taken out of Gregory's, A Liturgy not so ancient, as that of Ambrose, and which in process of time was strangely altered is much more new, unto which the Dissenters cannot firmly adhere, if they will as they think they ought, make the most Primitive Practice the pattern and Rule of theirs.  
What need any other Impositions on the Ministers of the Gospel, or on the people now, than were on 'em the first 300 years? And why shall we be wiser than our first Forefathers? Is it not a duty to have a just respect to Antiquity? Why not then to that Antiquity that comes nearest unto the Apostles days? Whatever some may think, there are many among the Dissenters, who are fully persuaded that until all things in Religion be reduced to the ancient Constitution established by the Lord Christ, and his Apostles, adhered unto by those who for some hundred years followed 'em, the Church of God will never flourish.  
This is the Rule they must walk by, etc. or Sin against God, to avoid which Sin, they refuse to join with the Church of England in her Liturgy, that is so beside the practice of the Primitive Christians.  
Let these few of the many Arguments, which the Dissenters have offered against the lawfulness of the English Liturgy satisfy the Reader, On this I have the more fully insisted to the end those Sober Conformists, who it may be have not considered the Reasons why the Dissenters cannot conform to the English Liturgy may see thas 'tis not Honour, nor Fancy, but Conscience, that is the ground of their Nonconformity.  
I'm very Confident, that a great part of the Dissenters (I speak not of all because I know 'em not) would with all their Hearts Conform to all is required of 'em by the Church of England, could they do it with a safe Conscience, and surely, such among the Conformists, who will consider these Reasonings of the Dissenters, and who do not measure the Consciences of other Men by the Light and Latitude of their own, cannot but conclude, that there are some Nonconformists who cannot with a safe conscience conform, but should they do it, 'twould be against the plain convictions of consciences.  
As 'tis not humour nor fancy that occasions their Dissent from the Church, so 'tis more than mere scruple of conscience. These Dissenters are under strong convictions of Conscience, that they sin, if they conform; This is certainly the case of many, who are as fully persuaded, that the Conformists do err, as the Conformist can be that they do so.  
This being their case, the question is, whether notwithstanding these plain convictions of Conscience, they must conform, and act contrary to their convictions? Whether they may safely sin against God, to the end they may render the Obedience required by man? It hath been heretofore asserted by all sorts of Christians, whether Protestant or Papist. 1. That God must be obeyed rather than man; And, 2. That no authority is sufficient to oblige any to act contrary to the plain convictions of Conscience. Yea Medina himself doth assert, that a man must rather obey an erroneous Conscience, than the command of any Prelate, that is contradictory thereunto.  
Supposing these Dissenters do err, yet they must not act contrary unto an erroneous Conscience, the whole that can be justly desired is, that they use all regular means to depose and shake off the error of Conscience, which must be done by a sincere seeking God for more light, that they may come to the knowledge of the truth, and by a diligent and impartial enquiry into the true State of the controversy; Moreover, there must be if possible, a consulting the writings of the Learned on both sides, or a conversing with 'em, with a readiness to weigh all things with deliberation, and a resolution to embrace the truth, where ever 'tis found; But if after all their old convictions are rather strengthened than otherwise, they must beware they act not contrary to their Conscience. They must not resign up their reason, their Conscience, nor their Religion unto the pleasure of the greatest Potentate on Earth. This I take to be the Doctrine of all sound Protestants of the Church of England, yea I can, when there shall be an occasion, prove it to be so by a Collection of the several Arguments of the Learned Drs. of the Church, which they have urged for the confirmation of this truth, in the opposition they make to the blind obedience of the Papist. Whence I infer.  
That these Dissenters in refusing to join with the Church of England in the Liturgy, do but discharge their duty unto God. Their not joining with the Church is not the sin of Schism; Schism is asserted by Protestants to be a causeless separation, whence if there be a good cause why they separate, 'tis not causeless, and can there be a better cause than the avoiding sin? They separate, because they should sin if they did not separate.  
But though this be enough to clear the Dissenter, who is fully convinced of the unlawfulness of those Terms of Communion that are imposed on the people, yet 'tis not enough to justify the separation of those, who do not only think it lawful, but expedient to join with the Church of England in their Prayers and Ceremonies, etc. who if they will separate from the Church of England, and justify their separation, they must argue from other Topics, for certainly the peace of the Church, and the authority of the Magistrate, cannot but engage a people to do what is both lawful and expedient.  
These therefore (I think) deny, that they separate from the Communion of the Church. Although they worship God in Meetings, locally distant from the Parish Church, yet their Meetings are but as Chapels of Ease, and the Preachers but as Curates to the Parish Churches.  
That the Episcopal Party may effectually demonstrate a Religious Assembly locally distant from the Parish Church to be Schismatical, they must prove.  

1. That the people of this Assembly were once actually Members of the Parish Churches.  
2. That these people do ordinarily separate themselves from the external Communion of their Parish Churches.  
3. That their separation is causeless.   
First, They must prove, that the people of this Assembly, that is locally distant from the Parish Church, were once Members of the Parish Church, that they were under an obligation of holding external Communion with their Parishes.  
1. All External Communion must be in Parish Assemblys, or single Congregational Churches; For a Diocesan, Provincial or National Assembly of all the Members of those Societies for External Communion, is, on the account of the multitude of the people, impossible, 'tis impossible they should meet in one and the same Assembly, and hold Communion with each other in Prayers, in the Word, and in the Sacrament; Their External Communion in Prayers, etc. must be in lesser Assemblies, or not at all.  
2. Those who are under any Obligations of holding external Communion with this, or the other Parish must be Members of this or the other Parish Church. Such as are not Members of this or the other Parish Church, cannot be said to separate from it, tho' they meet in places locally distant, because they not being Members of the Parish Church, are not under any Obligation of holding external Communion with that Parish, A Man (says Dr. Stilling fleet) is not said to separate from every Church, where he forbears or ceases to have Communion, but only from that Church with which he is obliged to hold Communion, and yet withdraws from it, This sufficiently evinces, That unless the Conformists can prove that the Dissenters were obliged to hold Communion, as Members of the Parish Churches, they cannot prove a Separation. To separate from a Church doth suppose, that person to have been once of that Church.  
But the Quaerie is, how the Conformists will prove all the Dissenters to be Members of some particular Parish Church? Will they say that they were all made Members of some particular Parish Church by their Baptism? That cannot be, because by Baptism we are only made Members of the Catholic Church. Doth our being born English Men, and our Inhabiting in such a Parish make us Members of the Parish Church? No, for there are no Grounds in Scripture for this, Our Lord Jesus Christ, nor his Apostles did not leave any Intimations concerning such a Rule, neither can any precept, but what is fetch from God's word, fasten any such Obligation on the Conscience, that whoever lives within such a precinct must be a Member of such a Church, How then must it be? The Answer of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and the Primitive Christians for the first 300 years, and of most Protestants, is full for this, which is, That it must be by the people's consent. For as the people are invested with a Right to choose their own Pastor and the Church with which they would hold Communion. Even so they cannot be Members nor under any Obligation of holding Ordinary Communion with this, or the other particular Church without their own consent. Consent is as absolutely necessary to the constituting a particular Parish Church, as a National, which consent may be discovered not only Expressly, but also implicitly, which is when a people do ordinarily join with some particular Church in all Ordinances, as many Parishioners, who, by their Ordinary holding Communion with the Parish Church in all Ordinances, do practically, and interpretatively (though not expressly) discover their consent to be of that Church, whereby (I think) they are under an Obligation to constant Communion with that Parish Church so long as they find it lawful: Tho' these may Occasionally hold Communion elsewhere, yet their ordinary, and constant Communion must be with their Parish Church. For which reason, if they do ordinarily forbear, or cease to have Communion with their Parish-Church, it may be justly said, that they do separate from it.  
But there are many an Inhabitant in most Parishes, who, as they were not made Members of the Parish Church by Baptism, nor can be by mere Cohabitation, even so they never were by their own Consent, either expressly, or interpretatively. They never held Communion with the Church of England in all Ordinances, were never confirmed by the Bishops, nor ever did participate of the Lord's Supper, and therefore I think it cannot be truly said, That they Separate. How can they cease that Communion which they never had? For which reason to prove these Schismatical Separatists, who never separated from the Church, seems an Impossibility. Surely their exercise of that Right, and Power, with which they are invested as Christians in choosing their own Pastor, cannot be an Act Schismatical.  
By this 'tis manifest, That those who never expressly nor implicitly consenting to hold communion with any Parish-Church in all Ordinances were never actually obliged to hold Communion with such particular Parishes, and consequently their forbearing such Communion or their Assembling in places distant from the Parish Church cannot be a Separation, and if not a Separation, it cannot be a Schism.  
Thus the Reader may easily perceive how necessary 'tis, that the Conformists prove, that those Dissenters, who now meet in Assemblies locally distant from the Parish Churches, were once Members and under an Obligation of holding external Communion with the Parish Churches, if they will prove 'em Separatists, Furthermore they must prove.  
2. That this people do ordinarily Separate themselves from the external Communion of their Parish Church. For seeing the Sin of Schism consists in causeless Separation, there must be a Separation, or there can be no causeless Separation, (that is) there can be no Schism, but how the Conformist can prove a Separation any otherwise than by insisting on the people's, not holding Communion in the same manner, or same place with the Church, is difficult to suppose. And if they take either of their ways without the Addition of some other Consideration, they must either make many of their own Meetings Separate, which are in places locally distant from the Parish Church, where their Modes of Administration are different, or clear many Dissenters from the Reproach of Separation, what do they think of such Meetings in which the Common Prayer is read, are they Separate and Schismatical? But after they have proved both these, they cannot prove all Dissenters Schismatical, unless they can also evince.  
3. That the Separation is Causeless and Sinful, But how they can prove that those who, if they separate, do so on no other Account, than that they may forsake Sin is a point worthy of Consideration.  
If there be any sinful Imposition made the term of Communion, 'tis sufficient to justify the Separation of those, who withdraw themselves from the external Communion of that Church. If a Church that is sound in the Doctrine of Religion, though it detests an Idolatrous Worship, yet if it make the least Sin the Term of Communion, whereby the people cannot have Communion with that Church but by a deliberate committing that Sin, Separation from the Communion of this Church is justifiable. For whatever some may suggest, we must not commit the least Sin that good may come thereof.  
To insist then so much on the Peace and Unity of the Church, as if it were a Good for the Obtaining which we might venture on a little Sin, is a Notion of a very dangerous Tendency, giving too great Countenance to a Doctrine of the Papists, whereby they justify all their Villainies. A Little evil (say they) may be done for the Obtaining a great Good, for instance. The Salvation of the many Souls in Three Kingdoms is a great, a very great Good, the Killing One, Two, or Three Heretics in order thereunto, at most is but a little evil which may be done for so great a good. Moreover this justifies all their Officious Lying and Equivocating, they tell a Lie that some great good may come thereof. But this is so contrary to the pure Nature of a Holy God, and his Holy, Good, and Just Command, that whoever will indulge himself in a practical embracing such a Notion, doth but prepare the greater Damnation for his own Soul.  
God is a great God, and the least Sin being an Offence to his Dread Majesty, cannot knowingly with deliberation and allowance be committed, but the person that does it, exposeth himself to Divine Indignation; who ever breaketh the least of these my Commands, says Christ. Matth. 5. 19 is in danger of losing Heaven, for, though a man keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. James 2. 10. We must not speak nor act wickedly for God, he is not glorified by Man's lie, and therefore woe unto them that will do evil that good may come thereof. Rom. 3. 8. If the least sin be made the Term of Communion, no Consideration of Peace and Unity, or of Obedience to the Magistrate can excuse those from guilt, that will venture on that sin. Whence 'tis evident,  
That all those who by the Reasons insisted on in this Treatise are fully convinced, That somewhat sinful is imposed as a Term of Communion with the Church of England, they do but discharge their Duty, and keep a good Conscience in separating, and yet by separation do not accuse the Church, as if she had been no true Church, or as if Salvation could not by others be had in it. A Church that is sound in the Faith, that 'tis a true Church in a Theological Sense, being liable to Error, may, even while Sound in the great things of Religion, impose some Error, as a Term of Communion, from which those, who are convinced of the Sin, must separate. A sound Church in the great things, may err in lesser matters, and may Impose Assent and Consent unto that Error, as a Term of Communion, with the which these Dissenters durst not comply, but seeing they cannot have Communion on easier Terms, must separate.  
There is a great Difference between the Errors or Corruptions of a Church which are made Terms of Communion, and those which are not. 'Tis not to be questioned, but that a man may join with a Church that is less pure than another, even with a Church that hath several Spots in it (or he must join with none) and may be under an Obligation of continuing with that Church, although he may go elsewhere and be better edified, otherwise there being variety of Gifts, those who are more eminent than the rest among the Ministry, must have most of the people round, when other honest, though not so able; Preachers have few, or none. However if they make the least Spot, or Impurity a Term of Communion, he dares not comply. As long as he may may continue Communion without being made a partaker of the impurities, (as in many instances he may) he must not separate, but when they impose their corruptions as Terms of Communion, so that he cannot have Communion but by complying with the corruption, he must not sin for the sake of Communion, nor on any other consideration whatsoever.  
But seeing they cannot hold Communion with the Parish-Churches; The next great query is, what they must do, whether live without some Ordinances all the days of their Life, or Assemble themselves together for Communion in all Ordinances, in such a way as they are fully convinced is agreeable to the Sacred Scriptures.  
That they must not constantly neglect any Ordinance of God, nor the public attendance on his worship, somewhere is so clearly revealed in the word of God, that whoever is not so far in love with Quakerism, as to neglect the Testimony of God's written Word, cannot but acknowledge it; That the Lord Jesus who has instituted a Ministry, and made it the peculiar work of some men in special to preach the Word, not only for conversion of sinners, but for the edisication of the converted, for the help and benefit of whom there is instituted not the Ordinance of Baptism alone, but that of the Lord's Supper, which is designed for the strength and increase of Grace in Christians, I say this Lord Jesus, who hath so graciously instituted a Ministry and Ordinances, hath made it the duty of Christians to assemble themselves together, to the end they may be made partakers of the Blessings of his Institutions and Ordinances; And such is the Relation between Minister and People, that is, between a Gospel Minister, and an orderly Christian Assembly, that the one cannot be without the other, neither can the one ordinarily perform some Relational Duties, but in an Assembly with the other, and therefore must assemble themselves together, 'tis their duty.  
I cannot at present enlarge on this head, and therefore as to this I can only add, that the sense of all Protestants generally is, that all Christians ought to assemble themselves together for public worship; Viz. for Prayer, the Word and Sacraments, and that 'tis the duty of a Pastor to take heed to himself, and the Flock over which he is made overseer, and that 'tis the people's duty to attend Ordinarily on the Ministry of their own Pastor.  
The great difference between the Church of England and Dissenters, is not so much about the people's duty of assembling themselves together for public worship, as about the place where, and the Minister with whom. The Church of England says, it must be in the Parish Church with the Minister of the Parish, but the Dissenter asserts, that every Christian is invested with a right to choose his own Pastor, and that therefore he must go where he finds the worship to be in a way most agreeable to God's Holy word, but when he is once fixed, he is under those Obligations of Duty unto his Pastor, that the Church of England do say, a Parishioner is unto the Minister of the Parish. But seeing on these things I cannot now enlarge, I will conclude with an humble and affectionate request to all good Christians, whether Episcopal or Dissenter.  
I beseech you to consider, that conscience is a tender thing, its wounds unsupportable, frequently accompanied with such horror as is very like unto the pains and torments of the damned; No man therefore must act contrary to the plain convictions thereof. What man soever does, what he is convinced in Conscience is a sin, does greatly dishonour and provoke Almighty God. All care must be taken to obtain the knowledge of the truth, and gain a freedom from error, but there must not be an acting against the plain convictions of conscience, though erroneous.  
On this I insist as a sound part of the Protestant Doctrine, strenuously defended against the many feeble assaults of the Papist, by several worthies of the Church of England; And really this is a Rule all good Christians must walk by, in doing which, seeing there are almost as many different persuasions of conscience about some lesser things, as there are considering minds, there will be as many different practices where there are different Sentiments about matters of practice, there the practice will be different, for which reason, the strong must take heed that they despise not the weak, and the weak look to it that they judge not the strong; For whether we conform, or conform not, if we do what we do conscientiously to the Lord, we shall be accepted of him.  
I verily believe that many do think themselves bound in conscience to conform, the which they would not do to gain a world, if they did think it a sin, and 'tis as true, that many among the Dissenters are as conscientiously Non-conformists, and would really have conformed, did they not think that so conforming they should sin against God. Both these must be tenderly regarded by such as will walk by the Christian Rule; A Non-conformists censuring a conformist as one that acts against his conscience is unchristian, and a Conformist's censuring all Dissenters as Hypocrites, looking on their conscience to be but fancy, their Religion to be faction, is no less unchristian than the former. But to be more particular, my humble desire is,  
1. That those who are of the Communion of the Church of England, would continue it so long as they can with a safe conscience. Let not every little dissatisfaction with some men drive you off from those ways you have nothing, beside the miscarriage of some men of that profession, to object against, 'tis true, your duty is to mind the glory of God in the edification of your own Soul, and if your Parish Minister be one whose incapacity for the Ministerial work is such, as not to answer the end of the Ministry, you must look out for a better, and be where you may have more than the shadow of a Minister, even one who is competently qualified for the works; But do this in a way as little offensive to the Church of England, as your conscience will permit. Why will you separate from that Communion, where you may be without sin, especially seeing by doing so you do what you cannot justify? But if you cannot continue your Communion without complying with sin, you must rather withdraw than sin.  
2. That such as are not actually of any Communion, (i. e.) neither joined with the Church of England, nor with the Dissenter, of which fort there are many, especially among the younger people, would remember that they have, as Christians, a right to choose their own Pastor, in the exercise of which right, 'tis their duty to have a special regard to the Glory of God, the good of their own Soul, and the peace of the Church, and therefore if you may have all these ends answered by joining yourselves to the Church of England, and you can with a safe Conscience do it, you do well in joining with that Church, but if you can't with a safe Conscience join with the Church of England, but can with the Non-conformists, you must apply yourselves to those of the Non-conformists who do in your judgements keep most exactly to the rule of the Gospel. You must regard God's Glory as your ultimate end, the Salvation of your Soul as an end subordinate, and God's word as your Rule, by which in pursuance of these great ends, you must walk. Study therefore seriously the Rule, and be sure you do not knowingly and with deliberation deviate there from.  
3. My third request is to such as are joined with the Non-Conformists, that you Censure not those who continue their Communion with the Church of England, Are you Conscientious in your way, So ought you to esteem them to be in their way? Would not you have them consider you as Hypocrites, or fanciful Humourists, neither do you judge them to be such, what, though those Reasons I have Collected out of the Writings of the Old Nonconformists, may fasten powerful Convictions on your Conscience, yet they may not be of any such weight in the esteem of others. Tho' I have produced them to the end the Conformist may be moved to look on you as conscientious persons, yet do you not abuse it, as if all Conformists were as much Convinced by 'em as you yourselves are, and therefore must be esteemed to act contrary to their Consciences in conforming. Take heed of such censuring.  
Finally my humble desire is, That such as are of the conforming Clergy would consider, that the above mentioned Arguments may be (as indeed with many they are) of great Force, and that although the Conformist may be able easily to answer 'em; Yet Thousands among the Dissenters can not shake off the Convictions they receive from such Arguments. Oh then be not too severe in your censure! But consider that these Dissenters cannot conform but by wounding their Consciences, be therefore very tender how you impose on 'em, but do your utmost both for a Comprehension, and Indulgence of those sound Protestants, who walk conscientiously.   
FINIS.   

The LETTERS.  
BY an impartial perusal of these following Letters, the Reader may easily perceive the difference there was between some great States men in Queen Elizabeth's time, and some of the Clergy, and that when the Clergy were for a severe persecuting Protestant Dissenters, the Council, and in special the Lord Burleigh, that wonder of his age (though a Son of the Church of England) endeavoured the relief of the Non-conformists.  
These Letters were first taken from Archbishop Whitgift's own Copy, as may appear from the Title prefixed to the Letter, thus, My Lord Treasurer's Letter unto me, and my answer to the Lord Treasurer. There are some great persons among the Clergy, who have seen 'em in Manuscript.  

Numb. 1.  
THere is a Letter written to the Bishop for the execution of her Majesty's Proclamation for the Uniformity set forth in the book, and other injunctions, penned (as is supposed) by Sir Thomas Smith; The which I'll not fully transcribe. There is one clause only that is for my purpose, which is concerning the meetings of the Clergy, which were first ordained to keep all Churches in the Diocese, in an uniform and Godly Order, which now is commonly said (the more is the pity) to be only used of you [i. e. the Bishop and his Clergy,] and your Officers to get money, or for some other purposes; This passage shows the corruption of the Clergy.   

Numb. 2.  
A Letter written by the Lord Treasurer Cecil to Archbishop Whitgift, in answer to one received from the Archbishop.  
MAY it please your Grace; I perceive that the Bishop of Rochester through your persuasion is contented to be removed to Chichester, whereof I am glad, whereby the Dean of Westminster may be placed, as your Grace may think fit, and I do desire her Majesty will new place all the Bishops in the void room, whereof I am very mindful and desirous for the benefit of the Church, wishing that the Church may take that good thereby, that it hath need of, for surely your Grace must pardon me, I rather wish it, than look, or much hope for it; I see such Worldlyness in many that were otherwise affected before they came to Cathedral Churches, that I fear the places alter the men, but herein I condemn not all: but few there be that do better, being Bishops (in the void rooms whereof I am very mindful,) than being Preachers they did; I am bold thus to utter my mind of Bishops to an Arch bishop, but I clear myself, I mean nothing in any conceit to your Grace, for though of late I have varied in my poor opinion, in that by your order, poor simple men have rather been sought for by inquisition to be found Offenders, than upon their facts condemned, yet surely I do not for all this differ from your Grace in Amity and Love, but I do reverence your Learning and Integrity, and wish that the Spirit of gentleness may win, rather than severity; But therefore enough of the misbehaviour of Browning, towards the Master of Trinity College; I am sorry to hear as I do, esteeming him meeter for Bethlehem than for that College. The Queen's Majesty asked me, what I thought of Travers to be the Minister of the Temple, whereunto I answered, that at the request of Dr. Alney in his sickness, and of a number of honest Gentlemen of the Temple, I had yielded my Allowance of him to that place, so as he will show himself Conformable to the order of the Church, whereunto I was informed, that he would so be; But her Majesty told me that your Grace did not so allow of him, which I said might be for something supposed to be written by him, Tituled, de Disciplina Ecclesiastica, whereupon her Majesty commanded me to write to your Grace, to know your opinion, which I pray your Grace to signify unto her, as God shall move ye, surely it were great pity, that any impediment should be occasion to the contrary, for he is well learned, very honest, and well loved, and allowed of the generality of that house. Mr. Bond told me, that your Grace liked well of him, and so do I also, as of one well learned, and honest, but (as I told him) if he came not to the place with some applause of the Company, he shall be weary thereof, and I commended him to her Majesty, if Travers should not, but her Majesty thinketh him not fit for that place, because of his infirmity. Thus I end, wishing your Grace Assistance of God's Spirit to govern your charge unblamably  
Your Graces to command William Burleigh. From the Court at oatland's, Sept. 17. 1584.   

Numb. 3.  
A part of a Letter sent unto the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Bishop of London, from her Majesty's Council about September 20. 1584.  
AFter our hearty commendations to both your Lordships, although we have heard of late times sundry complaints out of divers countries of this Realm, of some proceed against a great number of Ecclesiastical Persons, some Parsons of Churches, some Vicars, some Curates, but all Preachers, whereby some were deprived of their live, some suspended from their Ministry, and preaching, yet we have forborn to enter into any particular examination of such complaints, thinking, that howsoever inferior Officers, as Chancellors, Commissaries, Arch-Deacons, and such like, whose Offices are of more value and profit by such kind of proceed, might in such sort proceed against the Ministers of the Church, yet your Lordship the Archbishop of that Province of Canterbury, have beside your general authority, some particular interest in the present jurisdiction of sundry Bishoprics vacant, and you also the Bishop of London, both for your own authority in your Diocese, and as head Commissioner Ecclesiastical would have a Pastoral regard over the particular Officers, to stay, and temperate them in their hasty proceed against the Ministers, and especially against such as do earnestly profess, and instruct the people against the dangerous Sects of. Papistry; but yet of late, hearing of the lamentable estate of the Church in the County of Essex, that is, of a great number of zealous and learned Preachers, they are suspended from their cures, the vacancy of the place for the most part without any Ministry or Preaching, Prayers and Sacraments, and in some places of certain appointed to those void rooms, being persons neither of learning, nor of good names, and in other places of that County, a great number of persons occupying the cures, being notoriously unfit, most for lack of learning, many charged or chargeable with great and enormions faults, as drunkenness, filthiness of Life, Gamesters at Cards, hunting of Alehouses, and such like, against whom we hear not of any proceed, but that they are quietly suffered to the slander of the Church, to the offence of good people, yea to the famishing of them for lack of good teaching, and thereby dangerous to the subverting of many weaklins from their duties to God, and the Queen's Majesty, by secret Jesuits, and counterfeit Papists, and having thus in a general sort heard out of many parts of the like of this lamentable Estate of the Church, yet to the intent, we should not be deceived in the generality of the reports we sought to be informed, etc.   

Numb. 4.  
A Letter from the Lord Treasurer to the Archbishop. July 5. 1584.  
IT may please your Grace, I am sorry to trouble you so often as I do, but I am more troubled myself, not only with many private Petitions of sundry Ministers, recommended for persons of credit, for peaceable persons in their Ministry, and yet by complaints to your Grace, and other your Colleagues in commission, greatly troubled, but also I am daily now charged by Councillors and public persons to neglect my duty in not staying these your Graces proceed, so vehement, and so general against Ministers and Preachers, as the Papists thereby are greatly encouraged, all evil disposed persons and subjects animated, and thereby the Queen's Majesty's safety endangered; with these kinds of Arguments I am daily assailed, against which I answer, that I think your Grace doth nothing, but being duly examined, tendeth to the maintenance of the Religion now Established, and to avoid Schism in the Church, I also have for example showed your papers sent to me, how fully the Church is furnished with Preachers, and how small a number there are that do contend for their singularity, but these occasions do not satisfy all persons, neither do I seek to satisfy all persons, but with Reason and Truth. But now my good Lord, by chance I have come to the sight of an Instrument of 24 Articles of great length and curiosity, form in a Romish Style, to examine all manner of Ministers in this time without distinction of persons, which Articles are Entitled apud Lambeth, May 1584. to be executed ex officio mero, etc. and upon this occasion I have seen them. I did recommend unto your Grace's favour two Ministers Curates of Cambridge-shire to be favourably heard, and your Grace wrote to me, that they were contentious, seditious, and persons vagrant, to maintain this controversy, wherewith I charged them sharply, and they both denied these charges, and required to be tried, and so to receive punishment, I answered, that your Grace would so charge them, and then I should see afterwards, what they should deserve, and advised them to resort to your Grace, comforting them that they should find favourable proceed, and so I hoped upon my former commendations the rather. What may be said to them I know not, nor whether they have been so faulty as your Grace have been informed, neither do I mean to treat for to favour such men, for pardon, I may speak upon their amendment; but now they coming to me, I asked how your Grace proceeded with them, they say, they are commanded to be examined by the Register of London, and I asked them whereof, they said of a great number of Articles, but they could have no copies of them, I answered, that they might answer to the truth, they said, that they were so many in number, and so divers, that they were afraid to answer to them, for fear of captious interpretation, upon this I sent for the Register, who brought me the Articles, which I have read, and find so curiously penned, so full of branches and circumstances, and I think, the Inquisitors of Spain use not so many questions to comprehend, and to trap their preys. I know your Canonists, can defend these with all their particles, but surely under your Grace's correction, this Juridical and Canonical sifting of poor Ministers is not to edify and reform, and in charity I think they ought not to answer to all these nice points, except they were very notorious Offenders in Papistry or Heresy. Now good my Lord, bear with my scribbling, I writ with the Testimony of a good Conscience; I desire the peace of the Church, I desire concord and unity in the exercise of our Religion, I fear no sensual wilful recusant, but I conclude that according to my simple judgement, this kind of proceeding is too much savouring the Romish Inquisition, and is rather a device to seek for Ossenders, than to reform any; This was not that charitable instruction that I thought was intended. If these poor Ministers should in some few points have any scrupulous conceptions meet to be removed, this is not a charitable way to send them to answer to your common Register upon so many Articles at one instant, without commodity of instruction by your Register, whose office is only to receive their answers, by which the parties are first subject to condemnation, before they be taught their errors; It may be that I say that Canonists may maintain this proceeding by Rules of their Laws, but though omnia lice●t, omnia non expediunt. I pray your Grace bear this (one, perchance a fault) that I have willed them not to answer these Articles, except their Consciences may suffer them. And yet I have sharply admonished them, that if they be disturbers in their Churches, they must be corrected, and yet upon your Grace's answer to me, ne suitor ultra erepidam, neither will I put falcem in alterius messem. My paper teaches me to make an end.  
Your Graces at command William Burleigh.  
Postscript.  
Your Grace must pardon my hasty scribbling, for I have done this raptim, and without correction.   

Numb. 5.  
The Treasurer's reply to an answer of the Archbishop's unto the former Letter. July 17. 1584.  
I Have received your Grace's loving Letter, answering Speeches (as I think) delivered by your Chaplain Dr. Cousin's, and I perceive you are sharply moved to blame me, and clear yourself, I know I have many faults, but I hope I have not given such cause of offence, as your Letter expresseth, I deny nothing that your Grace thinketh meet to proceed in with these whom you call factious, and therefore there is no controversy betwixt you and me expressed in your Letter. The controversy is passed in your Grace's Letter in silence, and so I do rest satisfied, your Grace promised me to deal (I say,) only with such as violate order, and to charge them therewith, which I allow well thereof; But your Grace not charging men with such faults, seeketh by examination to urge them to accuse themselves, and then I think you'll punish them. I think your Graces proceed is, (I will not say rigorous nor captious) but I think it is scarce charitable. I have no leisure to write more, and therefore I will end, for writing will but increase offence, and I mean not to offend your Grace. I am content that your Grace, and my Lord of London where I hear Brown is, use him as your Wisdoms shall think meet. If I had known his faults, I might be blamed for writing for him, but when by examination only it is to sift him with 24 Articles I have cause to pity the poor man.  
Your Graces as Friendly as any, William Burleigh.   

Numb. 6.  
The Archbishop's Answer to the Lord Treasurer.  
MY singular good Lord; God knoweth how desirous I have been from time to time to satisfy your Lordship in all things, and to have my do approved to you, for which cause, since my coming to this place, I have done nothing of importance without your advice, I have risen early, and sat up late, to write unto you such objections and answers as on either side were used, I have not done the like to any man, and shall I now say that I have lost my labour, or shall my just dealing with two of the most disordered Ministers in a whole Diocese (the obstinacy and contempt of whom, especially of one of them yourself would not bear in any subjected to your Authority) cause you so to think and speak of my do, yea and of myself, no man living should have made me believe it. Solomon saith, an old friend is better than a new, and I trust your Lordship will not so lightly cast off your old friend, for any of those new fangled factious Sectaries, whose fruits are to make divisions, wheresoever they come, and to separate old and assured friends. Your Lordship seemeth to charge me with breach of promise, touching my manner of proceeding, whereof I am no way guilty, but I have altered my first course of depriving them for not subscribing, only justifiable by law and common practice, both in the time of King Edward, and from the beginning of her Majesty's Reign. Your Lordship also objecteth that I took this course for the better maintenance of my book, etc. mine enemies said so indeed, but I trust my friends have a better opinion in me; Why should I seek for any confirmation of my book after years, or what should I get thereby more than already? And yet if subscription may confirm it; it is confirmed long ago, by the subscription of all the Clergy almost in England before my time, even of Branie also who seemeth now to be so wilful. Mine enemies and tongues of this slanderous and uncharitable Sect report, that I am revolted, become a Papist, and I know not what; But it proceedeth from their lewdness, not from any desert of mine, and I disdain to answer to such notorious untruths, which the best of them dare not avouch to my face. Your Lordship seemeth further to burden me with wilfulness, I am sure, that you are not so persuaded of me, I will appeal to your own Conscience, there is difference between wilfulness and constancy, I have taken upon me the defence of the Religion, and Rights of this Church of England, to appease the Sects of Schisms therein, to reduce all the Ministers thereof to Uniformity and due obedience, herein I intent to be constant, and not to waver with every wind, the which also my place, my person, my duty, the law, her Majesty, and the goodness of the cause doth require of me, and wherein your Lordship and others all things considered, aught in duty to assist and countenance me. It is strange that a man in my place dealing with so good warranties as I do, should be so encountered, and for not yielding should be accounted wilful, but I must be contented, vincit, qui patitur, and if my friends herein forsake me, I trust God will not, neithe law, her Majesty, who hath laid the charge on me, and are able to protect me; But of all other things it most greiveth me, that your Lordship should say, that the two Ministers far the worse because your Lordship sent them; Hath your Lordship ever had any cause so to think of me, it is needless for me to protest my heart and affections towards you above all other men, the world knoweth it, and I am assured that your Lordship nothing doubeth thereof, I have rather cause to complain to your Lordship of yourself, that upon so small occasion, and in the behalf of two such, you will so hardly conceive of me, yea and as it were countenance persons, so meanly qualified in so evil a cause against me your Lordship's so long tried friend, and their ordinary, that hath not so been in times past, now it should least of all be, I may not suffer the notorious contempt of any of them, especially unless I will become Aesop's block, well, because I would be loath to omit any thing whereby your Lordship might be satisfied, I have sent unto you certain reasons to justify the manner of my proceeding which I marvel should be so much misliked in this cause, having been so long practised in the like, yea in the same, and never before this time found fault with, truly my Lord, I must proceed this way, or not at all, the reasons I have set down in this paper, and I hearty pray your Lordship not to be carried away either from the cause, or from myself upon unjust surmises or clamours, lest you be some occasion of that confusion, which hereafter you would be sorry for: For mine own part, I desire no farther defence in these occasions of your Lordship, nor any other than justice and law will yield unto me. In my private affairs I know I stand in need of friends, especially of your Lordship, of whom I have made always an assured account, but in these public actions I see no cause why I should seek for friends, seeing they to whom the care of the common weal is committed, ought out of duty therein to join with me, to conclude, I am your Lordships assured, neither will I ever be persuaded, but that you bear an hearty good will towards me.  
So far Whitgift. If Dr. Burnet would undertake the carrying on the History of Ecclesiastical Affairs all the time Q. Eliz. lived, and in order thereunto, might he be so happy as to obtain a sight of all those great things were then on the stage, the world would see how little they are owing unto Heylin for his History, and also understand how unjustly the Old Protestants called Puritanès, have been represented as factious. etc.   
FINIS.